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.

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.

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

Barriers to reporting guideline adherence in point-of-care ultrasound research: a cross-sectional survey of authors and journal editors

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2020-111604
Author(s):  
Ross Prager ◽  
Luke Gagnon ◽  
Joshua Bowdridge ◽  
Rudy R Unni ◽  
Trevor A McGrath ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medicine ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
Journal Editors

ObjectiveAlthough the literature supporting the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) continues to grow, incomplete reporting of primary diagnostic accuracy studies has previously been identified as a barrier to translating research into practice and to performing unbiased systematic reviews. This study assesses POCUS investigator and journal editor attitudes towards barriers to adhering to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 guidelines.Design, setting, participantsTwo separate surveys using a 5-point Likert scale were sent to POCUS study investigators and journal editors to assess for knowledge, attitude and behavioural barriers to the complete reporting of POCUS research. Respondents were identified based on a previous study assessing STARD 2015 adherence for POCUS studies published in emergency medicine, anaesthesia and critical care journals. Responses were anonymously linked to STARD 2015 adherence data from the previous study. Written responses were thematically grouped into the following categories: knowledge, attitude and behavioural barriers to quality reporting, or other. Likert response items are reported as median with IQRs.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the median Likert score for the investigator and editor surveys assessing knowledge, attitude and behavioural beliefs about barriers to adhering to the STARD 2015 guidelines.ResultsThe investigator survey response rate was 18/69 (26%) and the editor response rate was 5/21 (24%). Most investigator respondents were emergency medicine practitioners (13/21, 62%). Two-thirds of investigators were aware of the STARD 2015 guidelines (12/18, 67%) and overall agreed that incomplete reporting limits generalisability and the ability to detect risk of bias (median 4 (4, 5)). Investigators felt that the STARD 2015 guidelines were useful, easy to find and easy to use (median 4 (4, 4.25); median 4 (4, 4.25) and median 4 (3, 4), respectively). There was a shared opinion held by investigators and editors that the peer review process be primarily responsible for ensuring complete research reporting (median 4 (3, 4) and median 4 (3.75, 4), respectively). Three of 18 authors (17%) felt that the English publication language of STARD 2015 was a barrier to adherence.ConclusionsAlthough investigators and editors recognise the importance of completely reported research, reporting quality is still a core issue for POCUS research. The shared opinion held by investigators and editors that the peer review process be primarily responsible for reporting quality is potentially problematic; we view completely reported research as an integral part of the research process that investigators are responsible for, with the peer review process serving as another additional layer of quality control. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals, auditing reporting guideline adherence during the peer review process and translation of STARD 2015 guidelines into additional languages may improve reporting completeness for the acute POCUS literature.Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework Registry (https://osf.io/5pzxs/).

scholarly journals PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN THE PUBLISHING ENTERPRISE: FOCUS ON JOURNAL EDITORS

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-221
Author(s):  
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Case Scenario ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Peer Community

Editors play a central role and form an essential link in the publication process. Consequently, they hold considerable influence as to how the literature is molded, and what eventually gets published. In addition to their standard editorial responsibilities, holding that amount of power, editors have extremely high responsibilities to declare any conflicts of interest (COIs) internal to, and external to, the peer review process, particularly those involving personal relationships and networks. This is because they also exist in the peer community, can be high-profile public figures, and form a very unique and restricted – in terms of size, membership and exclusivity – set of individuals. Consequently, editors need to declare their COIs openly, transparently, and publicly on their editor board profiles, and as part of their curriculum vitae. Without such declarations, the greater risk is that editors might have unregulated freedom to enforce their own individual or group biases, through hidden relationships and networks, including the possibility of hiding instances of favoritism, cronyism and nepotism. In the worst-case scenario, this might reflect editorial corruption. Hidden COIs in authors, which tend to be the focus of the academic publishing establishment, including in codes of conduct and ethical guidelines such as those by COPE and the ICMJE, tend to down-play editorial COIs, or restrict them to scrutiny during the peer review process. This opinion piece examines whether there is a systemic problem with under-reported editorial COIs, particularly personal and non-financial COIs, that extend beyond the peer review process and their editorial positions. Greater awareness, debate, and education of this issue are needed.

scholarly journals The Problem with Peer Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bård Smedsrød ◽  
Erik Lieungh
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Individual Researcher ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Publishing Houses ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The University ◽  
Insight Into

In this episode professor at UIT - The Arctic University of Norway, Bård Smedsrød, gives us an insight into peer review. How does the system work today, and what's problematic with it? Smedsrød also offers some solutions and encourages Universities to be much more involved in the peer review process. The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh. You can also read Bård's latest paper on peer reviewing: Peer reviewing: a private affair between the individual researcher and the publishing houses, or responsibility of the university? This episode was first published 2 November 2018.

scholarly journals Innovating Editorial Practices: Academic Publishers at Work

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Serge Pascal Johannes Maria Horbach ◽  
Willem Halffman
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Business Value ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Editorial Practices

Abstract Background: Triggered by a series of controversies and diversifying expectations of editorial practices, several innovative peer review procedures and supporting technologies have been proposed. However, adoption of these new initiatives seems slow. This raises questions about the wider conditions for peer review change and about the considerations that inform decisions to innovate. Methods: We carried out field visits to the editorial office of two large academic publishers to study their editorial process. We set out to reveal how the benefits of peer review innovations are understood and to describe the considerations that inform the implementation of innovations.Results: This study shows how the publishers’ internal hierarchy determines whose arguments are most likely to prevail and it explicates the different meanings attached to editorial practices by different actors. We furthermore show that the editorial process is closely connected to commercial practices of creating business value, and the very specific terms in which business value is understood, such as reputation considerations and the urge to increase efficiency.Conclusion: This demonstrates that commercial considerations extend much further than the publishers’ choice for business or publication models and reach into the very heart of the editorial and peer review process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document