Preserving the Quality of Scientific Research: Peer Review of Research Articles

2017 ◽  
pp. 73-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pali U. K. De Silva ◽  
Candace K. Vance
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Research Articles

scholarly journals Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication and Scientific Publishing

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Bishnu Bahadur Khatri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

Peer review in scholarly communication and scientific publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In the growing interest of scholarly research and publication, this paper tries to discuss about peer review process and its different types to communicate the early career researchers and academics.This paper has used the published and unpublished documents for information collection. It reveals that peer review places the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of scientific publishing. It is the system used to assess the quality of scientific research before it is published. Therefore, it concludes that peer review is used to advancing and testing scientific knowledgeas a quality control mechanism forscientists, publishers and the public.

scholarly journals Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula CABEZAS Del FIERRO ◽  
Omar SABAJ MERUANE ◽  
Germán VARAS ESPINOZA ◽  
Valeria GONZÁLEZ HERRERA
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Average Length ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Review Time ◽  
Feedback Quality ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract The value of scientific knowledge is highly dependent on the quality of the process used to produce it, namely, the quality of the peer-review process. This process is a pivotal part of science as it works both to legitimize and improve the work of the scientific community. In this context, the present study investigated the relationship between review time, length, and feedback quality of review reports in the peer-review process of research articles. For this purpose, the review time of 313 referee reports from three Chilean international journals were recorded. Feedback quality was determined estimating the rate of direct requests by the total number of comments in each report. Number of words was used to describe the average length in the sample. Results showed that average time and length have little variation across review reports, irrespective of their quality. Low quality reports tended to take longer to reach the editor, so neither time nor length were related to feedback quality. This suggests that referees mostly describe, criticize, or praise the content of the article instead of making useful and direct comments to help authors improve their manuscripts.

scholarly journals The passive voice in scientific writing. The current norm in science journals

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (01) ◽  
pp. A03 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leong Ping Alvin
Keyword(s):  
Canonical Form ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Passive Voice ◽  
Adverbial Clauses ◽  
Scientific Research Articles

In contrast to past consensus, many authors now feel that the passive voice compromises the quality of scientific writing. However, studies involving scientific articles are rare. Using a corpus of 60 scientific research articles from six journals, this study examined the proportion of passives used, and the contexts and forms in which they occurred. The results revealed that about 30% of all clauses were passive clauses. The canonical form was most pervasive, followed by the bare passive; together, they constituted more than a quarter of all clauses analyzed. Passives were typically used in main clauses, followed by relative and adverbial clauses. Roughly 29% of all passives were located in the methodology section. Based on the results, the proportion of passives in scientific writing may stabilize at about 30%. It is unlikely to dramatically drop any further since the trend suggests that passives are still widely used in the methodology section.

scholarly journals CODECHECK: an Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 253
Author(s):  
Daniel Nüst ◽  
Stephen J. Eglen
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Building Block ◽  
Scientific Paper ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Multiple Dimensions ◽  
Computational Research ◽  
Textual Research

The traditional scientific paper falls short of effectively communicating computational research.  To help improve this situation, we propose a system by which the computational workflows underlying research articles are checked. The CODECHECK system uses open infrastructure and tools and can be integrated into review and publication processes in multiple ways. We describe these integrations along multiple dimensions (importance, who, openness, when). In collaboration with academic publishers and conferences, we demonstrate CODECHECK with 25 reproductions of diverse scientific publications. These CODECHECKs show that asking for reproducible workflows during a collaborative review can effectively improve executability. While CODECHECK has clear limitations, it may represent a building block in Open Science and publishing ecosystems for improving the reproducibility, appreciation, and, potentially, the quality of non-textual research artefacts. The CODECHECK website can be accessed here: https://codecheck.org.uk/.

scholarly journals CODECHECK: an Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 253
Author(s):  
Daniel Nüst ◽  
Stephen J. Eglen
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Building Block ◽  
Scientific Paper ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Multiple Dimensions ◽  
Computational Research ◽  
Textual Research

The traditional scientific paper falls short of effectively communicating computational research.  To help improve this situation, we propose a system by which the computational workflows underlying research articles are checked. The CODECHECK system uses open infrastructure and tools and can be integrated into review and publication processes in multiple ways. We describe these integrations along multiple dimensions (importance, who, openness, when). In collaboration with academic publishers and conferences, we demonstrate CODECHECK with 25 reproductions of diverse scientific publications. These CODECHECKs show that asking for reproducible workflows during a collaborative review can effectively improve executability. While CODECHECK has clear limitations, it may represent a building block in Open Science and publishing ecosystems for improving the reproducibility, appreciation, and, potentially, the quality of non-textual research artefacts. The CODECHECK website can be accessed here: https://codecheck.org.uk/.

scholarly journals Reasons for Manuscript Rejection at Internal and Peer-review Stages

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
Souhail Adib ◽  
Vahid Nimehchisalem
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Literacy Studies ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Inductive Thematic Analysis

The noble aim of publishing an article is to drive the wheel of scientific research forward; pragmatically speaking, though, and that is the case of many authors, a publication is a set criterion for their graduation or promotion. When publishing an article is mentioned, authors tend to contemplate rejection. Some fear rejection to the point of refraining from drafting the manuscript. To identify the most common reasons why submissions are rejected, internally by the journal editors (also referred to as preview or screening stage), and externally by the blind reviewers, we analysed the preview and review comments of 100 rejected submissions to the International Journal of Education and literacy Studies (IJELS) in the period between 2018 and 2020. The results of inductive thematic analysis indicated that the main reasons why submissions were rejected at the preview stage were problems with originality, poor language, scope, format, and organization. At the review stage, the main reasons were methodology, organization, language, insignificance, and literature review. Additionally, other less common reasons why manuscripts were rejected were that they lacked clear and conventional result reports, in-depth discussions, and thick conclusions, relevant, current, and impactful references among others to be discussed in this article. Many of these issues are, of course, fixable and future authors are highly encouraged to go through this paper and treat it as a guideline that will improve the quality of their manuscripts, and therefore, they will stand higher chances of acceptance.

scholarly journals Authors beware! Publishing in predatory journals is harmful

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jiban Shrestha
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Paper ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Scientific Communities ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Global Challenge ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Harmful Effects

Predatory publishing is now rapidly growing and becoming a global challenge to scientific communities. Predatory publications pose a danger that could undermine the quality, integrity, and reliability of published scientific research works. They harm the career of those authors who published on them. The researchers should be aware of the quality of journals while publishing their research results. In this review, we briefly summarize the ways to spot out predatory publications, their harmful effects, and strategies to stop them. Authors should know the lists of predatory journals/publishers which are available on Beall’s list on the internet. Predatory journals take advantage of authors by asking them to publish for a fee without providing peer-review or editing services. The young and inexperienced authors are easy victims of predatory publications.  The predatory publications are worthless, just a waste of time, resources, money, and efforts. The objective of this review paper was to create awareness about predatory journals among researchers and scholars.

Developing the culture and discipline of conducting and publishing scientific research: Guiding principles

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Daniel Obeng-Ofori
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
Weekly Schedule ◽  
Academic Activities ◽  
Heavy Workload ◽  
Guiding Principles ◽  
Mentoring System ◽  
Critical Constraints

The pressure to publish is a fact of life in academia. Academics are expected to demonstrate that they are active researchersand that their work has been vetted by peers and disseminated in reputable scholarly forums. In practice, however, a numberof critical constraints hamper effective publication of scientific research in most developing countries. These include lackof effective mentoring system, poor facilities and inadequate funding for effective research and heavy workload where toomuch time and effort are spent in teaching, grading, meetings and other non-academic activities. In spite of these seeminglyinsurmountable challenges, with proper planning and commitment, one can still conduct research and publish to advanceones career and exchange of knowledge. The paper discusses the critical guiding principles in scientific writing and publishingin an unfriendly research environment as pertains in most universities in the developing world. The overriding principle isto cultivate the discipline of scientific writing consciously and follow it through religiously. This could be achieved if time isallocated for scientific writing in the scheme of weekly schedule of activities and made to be functional through meticulousplanning and commitment. Equally important is to avoid procedural mistakes in scientific writing. While the quality of theresearch is the single most important factor in determining whether an article will be published, a number of proceduralmistakes can help tip the balance against its publication. It should also be noted that when a manuscript is submitted to ascholarly journal, there are two audiences to satisfy: first the editor and external reviewers, and then the journal’s readers.That first group must be satisfied to create the opportunity to appeal to the second. Thus, familiarity with the style and tone ofthe specific journal is crucial.

PROFESSORS' PERCEPTION OF SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITY IN THE FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GUAYAQUIL

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 70-76
Author(s):  
Jorge Daher Nader ◽  
Amelia Patricia Panunzio ◽  
Marlene Hernández Navarro
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Research ◽  
Scientific Activity ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
University Environment ◽  
Empirical Level ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
Scientific Nature ◽  
The University

Research is considered a function aimed at obtaining new knowledge and its application for the solution to problems or questions of a scientific nature, The universities framed in the fulfillment of their social function have a complex task given by training a competent professional who assumes research as part of their training and who learns to ask questions that they are able to solve through scientific research.  Scientific research is an indicator of the quality of processes in the university environment, so it must be increased by virtue of the results of the work carried out by research teachers and students the objective of this work is to know the perception of the teachers of the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the University of Guayaquil about the scientific activity. Objective: to know the perception of the teachers of the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the University of Guayaquil about the scientific activity. Methods: theoretical and empirical level were used, a questionnaire with closed questions aimed at knowing the opinions on the research activity in this institution was applied. Result: that of the sample analyzed 309 (39.3%) said they agreed with the training for the writing of scientific articles. 38.6% said they agree with the training on research projects. Conclusion: that teacher’s research should be enhanced to ensure the formation and development of research skills in students.

A Study of Medical Board Peer Reviews in Nevada

2010 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-29
Author(s):  
Jerry C. Calvanese
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Clark County ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Medical Examiners ◽  
Washoe County ◽  
Total Average Cost ◽  
Total Average

ABSTRACT Study Objective: The purpose of this study was to obtain data on various characteristics of peer reviews. These reviews were performed for the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners (NSBME) to assess physician licensees' negligence and/or incompetence. It was hoped that this data could help identify and define certain characteristics of peer reviews. Methods: This study examined two years of data collected on peer reviews. The complaints were initially screened by a medical reviewer and/or a committee composed of Board members to assess the need for a peer review. Data was then collected from the peer reviews performed. The data included costs, specialty of the peer reviewer, location of the peer reviewer, and timeliness of the peer reviews. Results: During the two-year study, 102 peer reviews were evaluated. Sixty-nine percent of the peer-reviewed complaints originated from civil malpractice cases and 15% originated from complaints made by patients. Eighty percent of the complaint physicians were located in Clark County and 12% were located in Washoe County. Sixty-one percent of the physicians who performed the peer reviews were located in Washoe County and 24% were located in Clark County. Twelve percent of the complaint physicians were in practice in the state for 5 years or less, 40% from 6 to 10 years, 20% from 11 to 15 years, 16% from 16 to 20 years, and 13% were in practice 21 years or more. Forty-seven percent of the complaint physicians had three or less total complaints filed with the Board, 10% had four to six complaints, 17% had 7 to 10 complaints, and 26% had 11 or more complaints. The overall quality of peer reviews was judged to be good or excellent in 96% of the reviews. A finding of malpractice was found in 42% of the reviews ordered by the medical reviewer and in 15% ordered by the Investigative Committees. There was a finding of malpractice in 38% of the overall total of peer reviews. The total average cost of a peer review was $791. In 47% of the peer reviews requested, materials were sent from the Board to the peer reviewer within 60 days of the original request and 33% took more than 120 days for the request to be sent. In 48% of the reviews, the total time for the peer review to be performed by the peer reviewer was less than 60 days. Twenty seven percent of the peer reviews took more than 120 days to be returned. Conclusion: Further data is needed to draw meaningful conclusions from certain peer review characteristics reported in this study. However, useful data was obtained regarding timeliness in sending out peer review materials, total times for the peer reviews, and costs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document