Sham Dealing and Sham Peer Review in Academic Publishing: Perspectives from a Case Study in a Mexican University

2020 ◽  
pp. 65-76
Author(s):  
Florencia Peña Saint-Martin
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Academic Publishing

scholarly journals The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study

2020 ◽  
Vol 125 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maciej J. Mrowinski ◽  
Agata Fronczak ◽  
Piotr Fronczak ◽  
Olgica Nedic ◽  
Aleksandar Dekanski
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Insight Into

Abstract In this paper, we provide insight into the editorial process as seen from the perspective of journal editors. We study a dataset obtained from the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, which contains information about submitted and rejected manuscripts, in order to find differences between local (Serbian) and external (non-Serbian) submissions. We show that external submissions (mainly from India, Iran and China) constitute the majority of all submissions, while local submissions are in the minority. Most of submissions are rejected for technical reasons (e.g. wrong manuscript formatting or problems with images) and many users resubmit the same paper without making necessary corrections. Manuscripts with just one author are less likely to pass the technical check, which can be attributed to missing metadata. Articles from local authors are better prepared and require fewer resubmissions on average before they are accepted for peer review. The peer review process for local submissions takes less time than for external papers and local submissions are more likely to be accepted for publication. Also, while there are more men than women among external users, this trend is reversed for local users. In the combined group of local and external users, articles submitted by women are more likely to be published than articles submitted by men.

scholarly journals The long and winding road to publication

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 213-215
Author(s):  
Edwin Roland Van Teijlingen ◽  
Padam Prasad Simkhada ◽  
Bibha Simkhada ◽  
Jillian Catherine Ireland
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Scientific Papers

It is clear that academic dissemination has a system of checks and balances which authors may experience as barriers.  We all want to be sure that scientific information disseminated in academic journals is based on solid data, ethically collected and correctly interpreted.  The process of peer reviewing helps to prevent bad science and/or poor scientific papers being published.  Many published scientific papers differ from the original submitted manuscript since papers go through a process of peer-review, editing and rewriting.  However, there are other potential obstacles in the field of academic publishing.  This paper is a case-study of one methods paper which stumbled upon a number of barriers related to the viability and continued existence of a number of academic journals in Nepal.  Finally, we offer some advice to help health journals to survive when their editors leave.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/nje.v2i4.7093Nepal Journal of Epidemiology Vol.2(4) 2012 pp.213-215

Reference Conundrum: The Broad Definition of Peer-Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Fullerton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
The Core ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Reference Interactions ◽  
Definition Of

For years, the gold-standard in academic publishing has been the peer-review process, and for the most part, peer-review remains a safeguard to authors publishing intentionally biased, misleading, and inaccurate information. Its purpose is to hold researchers accountable to the publishing standards of that field, including proper methodology, accurate literature reviews, etc. This presentation will establish the core tenants of peer-review, discuss if certain types of publications should be able to qualify as such, offer possible solutions, and discuss how this affects a librarian's reference interactions.

PEER REVIEW ORIGINAL RESEARCH: EHS & LCA assessment for 7-ACA synthesis A case study for comparing biocatalytic & chemical synthesis

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard K. Henderson ◽  
Concepción Jiménez-González ◽  
Chris Preston ◽  
David J.C. Constable ◽  
John M. Woodley
Keyword(s):  
Chemical Synthesis ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Original Research

scholarly journals Acknowledgement to Reviewers of Philosophies in 2018

Philosophies ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
High Quality

Rigorous peer-review is the corner-stone of high-quality academic publishing [...]

Academic stratospheres-cum-underworlds: when highs and lows of publication cultures meet

2017 ◽  
Vol 69 (5) ◽  
pp. 516-528 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tereza Stöckelová ◽  
Filip Vostal
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Current System ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Micro Level ◽  
Two Bodies

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to link up and think through two bodies of literature, namely the critique of predatory publishing practices and the critique of political economy of established publishers, while introducing a reflection on the dynamic asymmetries of geopolitics and economics of globalizing knowledge production. Design/methodology/approach The authors deploy a conceptual approach developed with reference to a case study in order to explore the embedded logic of the current system of academic publishing. Findings The analysis shows that rather than examining two seemingly different issues (predatory publishing vs established publishers) as conflictual dualism, it is more productive to conceive them in associative and mutually constitutive fashion. Research limitations/implications A nuanced and multidimensional research approach is needed if we are to understand the dynamics of contemporary academic landscape. Originality/value The originality of the contribution lies in its problematizing of three established approaches that feature debates on the transformation of the academy. It moves beyond a micro-level explanation by (the lack of) individual morality as well as a structural explanatory framework preoccupied with publishing infrastructure and culturalist approach based on ready-made dichotomies of west/north vs south/east. Instead, the analysis provides an account that engages both with morality and geopolitics whilst tackling them as dynamic processes in making.

scholarly journals Reciprocal peer review for quality improvement: an ethnographic case study of the Improving Lung Cancer Outcomes Project

2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (12) ◽  
pp. 1034-1041 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma-Louise Aveling ◽  
Graham Martin ◽  
Senai Jiménez García ◽  
Lisa Martin ◽  
Georgia Herbert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Ethnographic Case Study ◽  
Cancer Outcomes
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document