Assessing the quality of the peer review process: Author and editorial board member perspectives

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (8) ◽  
pp. 701-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Bunner ◽  
Elaine L. Larson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Board Member ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Board Member

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its different types to communicate the early career researchers and academics.This paper has used the published and unpublished documents for information collection.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

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Arun Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Turnaround Time ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Late Response ◽  
Medical Sciences

Dear All Associated Users of AJMS: It gives us immense pleasure to publish the current issue of AJMS Vol 12 No 1 (2021). We started our journey from 2010 with an online edition of AJMS. Slowly we progressed with the support of our committed and strong team of Editorial board members and launched the printed edition in the year 2015 and we further expanded our publication frequency from quarterly issue to bimonthly issue. With the overwhelming response and support from our users, we now take a leap to publish monthly issue from this year (2021) onwards.  With the current expansion of edition, we make it clear that we have not made any compromise in the quality of articles which we publish in AJMS. We have been striving hard to serve the potential authors who has entrusted on us and chosen our journal to publish their manuscripts, making our journal as their journal of choice! On submission, the manuscripts are assigned to editor and section editor for initial review process, followed by assigning the manuscript to three reviewers of which two are internal reviewers and one outside the editorial board (external reviewer). The blind review process in our journal takes six to eight weeks’, sometimes even earlier depending on the reviewers and the decision is made once the review report is submitted to the editor. Sometimes the delay in turnaround time happens which is unavoidable due to late response from reviewers and from the authors. We insist the authors to communicate with the editor soon the review reports are sent to them for revisions. This would further shrink the time of publication from submission. The reviewers and the editorial board members are solely responsible for taking initial decision of the article but the final decision is based on the Editor. The best part of our journal is we respond to each and every author promptly and do not ignore any queries.  The details of the journal can be viewed by clicking the links of particular sections- Focus and Scope, Peer Review Process, Open Access Policy, Publication Frequency, Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of Asian Journal of Medical Sciences, Duties of Reviewers, Duties of Authors, Indexing of Asian Journal of Medical Sciences can be viewed by this link-https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/AJMS/about Submission Preparation Checklist, Author Guidelines, Plagiarism Policy can be viewed by following this link-https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/AJMS/about/submissions Authors are advised to go through the guidelines and then submit their manuscripts We look forward to further enhance the quality of article in AJMS and we will strive hard to ensure this journal goes global, in the future. Thank you all for your support and entrusting on us. Prof. Dr. Arun Kumar Editor-in-Chief, Asian Journal of Medical Sciences

scholarly journals Chief Editor's Voice

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Prof. Dr. Ashok Kumar Jha
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Research Journal ◽  
Service Commission ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Double Blinded

The RMC of the campus feels much pleasure to publish the annual multi-disciplinary peer reviewed research journal DRISTIKON as vol. 11(1). The journal and the articles published in it are clear evidence and fulfill the requirements laid down by UGC, Nepal, Tribhuvan University Service Commission, APA 7th ed. and other platforms. The journal is designed to serve as an outlet for an intellectual forum for the communication of intellectual ideas among professionals and other social scientists in relevant areas in general and with special reference to Nepal. The board welcomes all the professionals, researchers and all those interested to publish their research findings with significant contribution to society, education sector and international platform. Authors are also encouraged to submit papers which are related to current international, national or local issues. Almost all the scholarly and research articles published in the journal undergo the editorial peer review process prior to publication to fulfill the requirements of peer review process guided by UGC, Nepal and international standard. The goal of the peer review process is to ensure that the valid article is accepted, the messy article cleaned up, and the invalid article rejected. The board of editors has accepted the reviewer’s recommendations. All the articles submitted for publication are subjected to rigorous double blinded peer review to ensure its quality before it gets published.  Manuscripts submitted to this journal must not have been published or accepted for publication or submitted for publication elsewhere. The journal strictly follows guidelines of APA 7th ed. as well as strongly opposes plagiarized contents without proper citation. Following the necessary corrections and additions resulting from the review process the twenty accepted papers were included into the issue covering the specific areas of Nepali, English, Political Science, Science and Management. The cooperation extended by scholars and institutions in publishing this journal is highly appreciated. The opinions expressed in the articles are the author’s own and do not reflect the view of either the publisher or the editorial board. All manuscripts once published becomes the property of the publisher. We hope that inspiration and encouragement from the readers will continue to keep the ‘Dristikon’ alive and develop. We are also looking forward to receiving your comments and suggestions for further improvement in the future. We are grateful to the peer reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. The editorial board heartily thanks all the writers who have contributed research articles. We would also like to give special thanks to the campus chief Mr. Damodar Bhandari for his constant support in terms of finance and administration for the publication of this journal.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document