Ensuring the quality of the scientific assessment and the review process: The FDA’s good review practice initiative

1997 ◽  
pp. 125-133
Author(s):  
Murray Lumpkin
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Scientific Assessment ◽  
Good Review

scholarly journals How to choose and become a reviewer for a scientific medical journal

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 151
Author(s):  
Paola Gnerre ◽  
Giorgio Vescovo ◽  
Paola Granata ◽  
Cecilia Politi ◽  
Andrea Fontanella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Publication Delay ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Good Review

Peer review is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. The peer review of scientific manuscripts is a cornerstone of modern science and medicine. Some journals have difficulty in finding appropriate reviewers who are able to complete reviews on time avoiding publication delay. We discuss some of the main issues involved during the peer review process. The reviewer has a direct and important impact on the quality of a scientific medical Journal. Editors select reviewers on the basis of their expertise. Reviewers are more likely to accept to review a manuscript when it is relevant to their area of interest. They should respond to ethical principles, excluding any conflict of interest condition. The reviewer has to be professional, constructive, tactful, empathetic and respectful. Structured approaches, quality indicators and step-by-step process check list formats could be useful in obtaining a good review.

scholarly journals Evaluasi Kualitas Reviu Laporan Keuangan Kementerian: Studi pada Inspektorat Kementerian Pariwisata

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 47
Author(s):  
Dewi Puspasari ◽  
Arief Surya Irawan
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Limited Time ◽  
Work Unit ◽  
Budget Support ◽  
Good Review ◽  
Year 2013

The review of the financial statements carried out by the inspectorate has a major role in assisting the realization of a clean, transparent and accountable government, through the supervision of qualified state finances. This study aimed to evaluate the review quality of the ministry financial statements by the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Tourism and analyze the factors that become obstacles faced by the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Tourism in conducting the review of the financial statements. This study identified the review quality conducted by the parties involved in the review process of the ministry financial statements. The parties are the inspectorate as the reviewer and the work unit (satker) reviewed.The results indicated that the review quality conducted by the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Tourism is included in the category of good review quality. The level of compliance showing the review quality from the inspectorate is 88, 82% and from the satker is 85%. Although the review of the Ministry of Tourism has a good quality, in 2012, however, it still got WDP opinion and disclaimer in the year 2013-2014. This is because the reviews and audits have different goals and procedures. The Inspectorate of the Ministry of Tourism does not review SPI so there is no SPI review value. Meanwhile BPK considered Ministry of Tourism SPI to determine audit procedures with the aim to provide opinion on the financial statements. During this period, the implementation of the review faced the obstacles of the delay in submitting financial statements, nomenclature changes, limited auditor numbers and competencies, limited time, and lack of budget support. 

ACADEMY Journal 7(9), 2018

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liudmila Vyacheslavovna Fomina ◽  
Саидова Феруза Бахтияровна
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Open File ◽  
Specific Research ◽  
Blind Review

"Journal of the Academy" isan international,peerreviewedmonthly journal. It is dedicated tothe publication of original scientific articles invarious academic disciplines.Articles that may be of interest to a wide rangeof researchers, welcome, and are not limited tothose who work on specific research subjects."Journal of the Academy" has an open file,according to which the published articles areavailable immediately after its publication, withthe exception of the embargo.ExpertiseThe magazine has a blind review process. Allarticles will initially be evaluated by the editor tomatch the magazine. The manuscripts that areconsidered suitable, are usually sent at leasttwo independent experts to evaluate thescientific quality of the article. The editor isresponsible for the final decision on whether toaccept or reject the article. Editor's decision isfinal.

Evaluating quality of science in CGIAR research programs: Use of bibliometrics

2021 ◽  
pp. 003072702110242
Author(s):  
Max Rünzel ◽  
Paolo Sarfatti ◽  
Svetlana Negroustoueva
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Monitoring And Evaluation ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Practical Utilization ◽  
Research Programs ◽  
First Time ◽  
Quality Of Research

When evaluating Quality of Science (QoS) in the context of development initiatives, it is essential to define adequate criteria. The objective of this perspective paper is to show how altmetric and bibliometric indicators have been used to support the evaluation of QoS in the 2020 Review of the Phase 2-CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs, 2017–2022), where, for the first time, the Quality of Research for Development (QoR4D) frame of reference has been utilized across the entire CGIAR CRP portfolio. Overall, the CRP review showed a significant output of scientific publications during the period 2017–2020, with 4,872 articles, 220,101 references, and 7.1 citations per article. Additionally, wider interest in scientific publications is demonstrated by good to high altmetrics, with average attention scores ranging from 70.8 to 806.9 with an average of 425.1. The use of selected bibliometrics was shown to be an adequate tool, for use together with other qualitative indicators to evaluate the QoS in the 12 CRPs. The CRP review process clearly demonstrated that standardized, harmonized and consistent data on research output is paramount to provide high-quality quantitative instruments and should be a priority throughout the transition toward One CGIAR. Therefore, we conclude that the QoR4D framework should be augmented by standardized bibliometric indicators embedded in measurement frameworks within the new One CGIAR. Finally, its practical utilization in monitoring and evaluation should be supported with clear guidelines.

A Model of the Academic Review Process with Informed Authors

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 865-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ofer H. Azar
Keyword(s):  
Research Productivity ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Noisy Signal ◽  
Average Quality ◽  
Academic Review ◽  
Journal Policies

Abstract Research on the academic review process may help to improve research productivity. The article presents a model of the review process in a top journal, in which authors know their paper’s quality whereas referees obtain a noisy signal about quality. Increased signal noisiness, lower submission costs and more published papers all reduce the average quality of published papers in the journal. The model allows analyzing how the submission cost, the accuracy of referees and the number of published papers affect additional equilibrium characteristics. Implications of the model for journal policies are also discussed.

scholarly journals 2021 Transportation Science Meritorious Service Awards

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
The Many

We are pleased to announce the recipients of the inaugural Transportation Science Meritorious Service Awards. These awards recognize associate editors and reviewers who have offered exceptional service in the review process. We truly appreciate all the efforts of the many volunteers who provide invaluable service to the journal. The 2021 recipients have distinguished themselves by the number of papers handled, their efficiency in handling papers, and the quality of their reviews.

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 Evaluating, Improving, and Appreciating Peer Review at IJTMB

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Ann Blair Kennedy, LMT, BCTMB, DrPH
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Improve Efficiency ◽  
Peer Reviewers

  Peer review is a mainstay of scientific publishing and, while peer reviewers and scientists report satisfaction with the process, peer review has not been without criticism. Within this editorial, the peer review process at the IJTMB is defined and explained. Further, seven steps are identified by the editors as a way to improve efficiency of the peer review and publication process. Those seven steps are: 1) Ask authors to submit possible reviewers; 2) Ask reviewers to update profiles; 3) Ask reviewers to “refer a friend”; 4) Thank reviewers regularly; 5) Ask published authors to review for the Journal; 6) Reduce the length of time to accept peer review invitation; and 7) Reduce requested time to complete peer review. We believe these small requests and changes can have a big effect on the quality of reviews and speed in which manuscripts are published. This manuscript will present instructions for completing peer review profiles. Finally, we more formally recognize and thank peer reviewers from 2018–2020.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document