scholarly journals Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective

2017 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 633-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janine Huisman ◽  
Jeroen Smits
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

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and its different types to communicate the early career researchers and academics.This paper has used the published and unpublished documents for information collection.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.

scholarly journals Online Journals: the Path Towards Visibility and Quality

1970 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 175-184
Author(s):  
Julie Walker
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Online Journal ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Virtuous Cycle ◽  
Journal Visibility

Increasing the visibility of a journal is the key to increasing quality. The International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications works with journal editors in the global South to publish their journals online and to increase the efficiency of the peer review process. Editors are trained in using the Open Journals System software and in online journal management and strategy so they have the tools and knowledge needed to initiate a ‘virtuous cycle' in which visibility leads to an increase in the number and quality of submissions and in turn, increased citations and impact. In order to maximise this increase in quality, it must be supported by strong editorial office processes and management. This article describes some of the issues and strategies faced by the editors INASP works with, placing a particular emphasis on Nepal Journals Online. Key words: INASP; Open Journals System; Journals Online Projects; Nepal Journals Online; journal visibility; peer review DOI: 10.3126/dsaj.v3i0.2786 Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol.3 2009 175-184

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 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 A peer review process to assess the quality of graduate medical education

1988 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 288-93
Author(s):  
H Levine ◽  
E Vanek ◽  
G Lefferts ◽  
W Michener ◽  
G Weiker
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Graduate Medical Education ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Graduate Medical

scholarly journals AI-assisted peer review

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Checco ◽  
Lorenzo Bracciale ◽  
Pierpaolo Loreti ◽  
Stephen Pinfield ◽  
Giuseppe Bianchi
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Working Hours ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Automated Screening ◽  
Textual Content

AbstractThe scientific literature peer review workflow is under strain because of the constant growth of submission volume. One response to this is to make initial screening of submissions less time intensive. Reducing screening and review time would save millions of working hours and potentially boost academic productivity. Many platforms have already started to use automated screening tools, to prevent plagiarism and failure to respect format requirements. Some tools even attempt to flag the quality of a study or summarise its content, to reduce reviewers’ load. The recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) create the potential for (semi) automated peer review systems, where potentially low-quality or controversial studies could be flagged, and reviewer-document matching could be performed in an automated manner. However, there are ethical concerns, which arise from such approaches, particularly associated with bias and the extent to which AI systems may replicate bias. Our main goal in this study is to discuss the potential, pitfalls, and uncertainties of the use of AI to approximate or assist human decisions in the quality assurance and peer-review process associated with research outputs. We design an AI tool and train it with 3300 papers from three conferences, together with their reviews evaluations. We then test the ability of the AI in predicting the review score of a new, unobserved manuscript, only using its textual content. We show that such techniques can reveal correlations between the decision process and other quality proxy measures, uncovering potential biases of the review process. Finally, we discuss the opportunities, but also the potential unintended consequences of these techniques in terms of algorithmic bias and ethical concerns.

scholarly journals Editor's Welcome

KIMIKA ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Florecita De Guzman
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Laboratory Experiments ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Undergraduate Research ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Instructional Materials ◽  
Primary Research ◽  
On Line ◽  
Industry Trends

Warmest welcome to our dear colleagues!We reintroduce you to KIMIKA, the Philippine journal for the chemical sciences. KIMIKA has taken a new look, and has reworked its focus to better reflect the research, industrial and academic efforts of chemistry practitioners in the country. We have expanded KIMIKA’s scope to include papers dealing with primary research results, scientific reviews, rapid communications, innovations in teaching, technical commentaries, instructional materials, novel laboratory experiments, industry trends, and policy papers. In succeeding issues, we also plan to have a section that features outstanding undergraduate research efforts.KIMIKA is now published by the Philippine Federation of Chemical Societies, and we hope that our expanded coverage will draw a wider base of readers and contributors of publishable material. To save printing costs and better manage our financial limitations, we have done away with paper copies and have adopted the open source, on-line format. A happy consequence of this is that submissions can be emailed anytime. Papers received will be subjected to peer review, and if accepted, will be copy-edited and uploaded immediately for on-line publication.We invite you to publish your work in KIMIKA. Rest assured that all papers published in KIMIKA are subjected to a peer review process that ensures the quality of published work.May we also take this opportunity to invite you to our workshop on scientific writing during the 28th Philippine Chemistry Congress in 2013?

Identifying Polarized Wikipedia Articles

2013 ◽  
pp. 272-284
Author(s):  
Nikos Kirtsis ◽  
Paraskevi Tzekou ◽  
Jeries Besharat ◽  
Sofia Stamou
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Critical Factor ◽  
User Generated Content ◽  
Information Credibility ◽  
Collaborative Efforts ◽  
Intuitive Manner ◽  
Open Nature

Wikipedia is one of the most successful worldwide collaborative efforts to put together user-generated content in a meaningfully organized and intuitive manner. Currently, Wikipedia hosts millions of articles on a variety of topics, supplied by thousands of contributors. A critical factor in Wikipedia’s success is its open nature, which enables everyone to edit, revise, and/or question (via talk pages) the article contents. Considering the phenomenal growth of Wikipedia and the lack of a peer review process for its contents, it becomes evident that both editors and administrators have difficulty in validating its quality on a systematic and coordinated basis. This difficulty has motivated several research works on how to assess the quality of Wikipedia articles. In this chapter, the authors propose the exploitation of a novel indicator for the Wikipedia articles’ quality, namely information credibility. In this respect, the authors describe a method that captures the polarized (i.e., biased) information across the article contents in an attempt to infer the amount of credible (i.e., objective) information every article communicates. This approach relies on the intuition that an article offering non-polarized information about its topic is more credible and of better quality compared to an article that discusses the editors’ (subjective) opinions on that topic.

scholarly journals Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications

2018 ◽  
Vol 115 (12) ◽  
pp. 2952-2957 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth L. Pier ◽  
Markus Brauer ◽  
Amarette Filut ◽  
Anna Kaatz ◽  
Joshua Raclaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Funding Success ◽  
Numeric Rating

Obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly competitive, as funding success rates have declined over the past decade. To allocate relatively scarce funds, scientific peer reviewers must differentiate the very best applications from comparatively weaker ones. Despite the importance of this determination, little research has explored how reviewers assign ratings to the applications they review and whether there is consistency in the reviewers’ evaluation of the same application. Replicating all aspects of the NIH peer-review process, we examined 43 individual reviewers’ ratings and written critiques of the same group of 25 NIH grant applications. Results showed no agreement among reviewers regarding the quality of the applications in either their qualitative or quantitative evaluations. Although all reviewers received the same instructions on how to rate applications and format their written critiques, we also found no agreement in how reviewers “translated” a given number of strengths and weaknesses into a numeric rating. It appeared that the outcome of the grant review depended more on the reviewer to whom the grant was assigned than the research proposed in the grant. This research replicates the NIH peer-review process to examine in detail the qualitative and quantitative judgments of different reviewers examining the same application, and our results have broad relevance for scientific grant peer review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document