Quality of peer review reports submitted to a specialty psychiatry journal

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 102599
Author(s):  
Vikas Menon ◽  
Natarajan Varadharajan ◽  
Samir Kumar Praharaj ◽  
Shahul Ameen
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Reports

scholarly journals Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035604
Author(s):  
Cecilia Superchi ◽  
Darko Hren ◽  
David Blanco ◽  
Roser Rius ◽  
Alessandro Recchioni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Version ◽  
Report Quality ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Definition Of

ObjectiveTo develop a tool to assess the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research.MethodsWe conducted an online survey intended for biomedical editors and authors. The survey aimed to (1) determine if participants endorse the proposed definition of peer-review report quality; (2) identify the most important items to include in the final version of the tool and (3) identify any missing items. Participants rated on a 5-point scale whether an item should be included in the tool and they were also invited to comment on the importance and wording of each item. Principal component analysis was performed to examine items redundancy and a general inductive approach was used for qualitative data analysis.ResultsA total of 446 biomedical editors and authors participated in the survey. Participants were mainly male (65.9%), middle-aged (mean=50.3, SD=13) and with PhD degrees (56.4%). The majority of participants (84%) agreed on the definition of peer-review report quality we proposed. The 20 initial items included in the survey questionnaire were generally highly rated with a mean score ranging from 3.38 (SD=1.13) to 4.60 (SD=0.69) (scale 1–5). Participants suggested 13 items that were not included in the initial list of items. A steering committee composed of five members with different expertise discussed the selection of items to include in the final version of the tool. The final checklist includes 14 items encompassed in five domains (Importance of the study, Robustness of the study methods, Interpretation and discussion of the study results, Reporting and transparency of the manuscript, Characteristics of peer reviewer’s comments).ConclusionAssessment of Review reports with a Checklist Available to eDItors and Authors tool could be used regularly by editors to evaluate the reviewers’ work, and also as an outcome when evaluating interventions to improve the peer-review process.

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 SUDANESE EXPERIENCE OF HERBAL FORMULAS USED DURING COVID-19 INFECTION

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
AzzaAbdelilah Ahmed Mohamed ◽  
Mai Abdalla Humaida ◽  
Ali Awadallah Saeed
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Off Label Use ◽  
Review System ◽  
Diabetes Therapy ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
Unique System ◽  
Review Reports

Objectives: Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is recent worldwide disaster which is considered by the WHO as Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). Method: A quick survey was done in Khartoum state for the commonly utilize herbs and the succeeded formulas, 652 people participated in this survey either they use these herbs for themselves or their relative use it during the symptoms of COVID-19. Results: A 652 people participated in the quick survey for the commonly utilized herbs & the succeeded formulas either they use these herbs for themselves or their relative use it during the symptoms of COVID-19. Other products used as additives include (honey,vinegar,sesame oil, olive oil and salt). Conclusion: Sudanese experience that various traditional herbs, usage and different route of administration can effectively alleviate primary symptoms e.g. fever, cough, fatigue and reduce probability of developing severe Conditions. Peer Review History: Received: 8 September 2020; Revised: 7 October; Accepted: 20 October, Available online: 15 November 2020 UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency. Received file Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 5.0/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 7.0/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Dr. Hebatalla Ibrahim Ahmed Abdel Hameed, Al-Azhar University, Faculty of Pharmacy (Girls), Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt [email protected] Dr. Mohamed Derbali, Faculty of Pharmacy, Monastir, Tunisia, [email protected] Comments of reviewer(s): Similar Articles: THE RISKS AND ADVANTAGES OF ANTI-DIABETES THERAPY IN THE POSITIVE COVID-19 PATIENT EUCALYPTUS ESSENTIAL OIL; AN OFF-LABEL USE TO PROTECT THE WORLD FROM COVID-19 PANDEMIC: REVIEW-BASED HYPOTHESES

scholarly journals THE ROLE OF ANTICOAGULANTS AND ANTIPLATELETS IN PROPHYLAXIS AND/OR TREATMENT OF SEVERE SARS-COV-2 INFECTION

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wessam F. El-Hadidy ◽  
Asmaa A. Khalifa
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
Port Harcourt ◽  
Unique System ◽  
High Incidence ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Rivers State

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2(SARAS-COV-2) was reported firstly in China by the end of  2019 then disseminated vigorously worldwide  and in 2020 reported by WHO as pandemic disease. It is associated by many symptoms, however; high incidence of thrombotic events was strongly correlated with SARAS-COV-2. Exploring anticoagulants to be added as thromboprophylaxis for Covid 19 patients become a must. Many options for thromboprophylaxis are available including anticoagulants, antiplatelets and fibrinolytics which were illustrated in this mini review.                       Peer Review History: Received 19 January 2021; Revised 3 February; Accepted 24 February, Available online 15 March 2021 UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency.  Received file:                Reviewer's Comments: Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 5.0/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 7.0/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Dr. Cecilia Nwadiuto Amadi, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt Rivers State, Nigeria, [email protected] Dr. A.A. Mgbahurike, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria, [email protected]   Similar Articles: COVID-19: PHARMACOLOGICAL AND THERAPEUTIC APPROACHES USE OF COLCHICINE TO COUNTERACT THE STRONG HYPERINFLAMMATORY STATE INDUCED BY SARS-COV-2 THE RISKS AND ADVANTAGES OF ANTI-DIABETES THERAPY IN THE POSITIVE COVID-19 PATIENT EUCALYPTUS ESSENTIAL OIL; AN OFF-LABEL USE TO PROTECT THE WORLD FROM COVID-19 PANDEMIC: REVIEW-BASED HYPOTHESES SUDANESE EXPERIENCE OF HERBAL FORMULAS USED DURING COVID-19 INFECTION TRADITIONAL TO RECENT APPROACHES IN HERBAL MEDICINE THERAPY OF COVID-19

scholarly journals Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. García ◽  
Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez ◽  
J. Fdez-Valdivia
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Hybrid Mode ◽  
Optimal Price ◽  
Benchmark Scenario ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Review Model

AbstractGiven how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay.

scholarly journals EVALUATION OF MULTIFUNCTIONALITY IN COSMETICS

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evren ALGIN YAPAR ◽  
Aslı ŞAHİNER ◽  
Bilge Ahsen KARA ◽  
Sümeyra TUNA YILDIRIM ◽  
Ece HALAT ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Cosmetic Products ◽  
Review System ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
Unique System ◽  
Cosmetic Ingredients ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
Review Reports

In recent years, developments in the field of cosmetic ingredients especially use of natural sources and carriers systems and the manufacturing methods resulted as an improvement in the effect and stability of cosmetics, and thus the performance and component-based multi-functionalities of cosmetic products. Those have partially contributed to the condition-dependent functionality, developments in the field of marketing, monitoring of expectations and their reflection on marketing and the creation of new ideas in the field of claim-driven multi-functionality. Multi-functionality in cosmetic products can be evaluated in four groups. These are performance-based multi-functionality, component-based multi-functionality, conditional multi-functionality and claim-driven multi-functionality. In the first two groups, performance related to formulation and manufacturing comes to the fore, while in the last two, safety becomes important and those are briefly given in this review.                    Peer Review History: Received: 12 May 2021; Revised: 11 June; Accepted: 25 June, Available online: 15 July 2021 Academic Editor: Ahmad Najib, Universitas Muslim Indonesia, Makassar, Indonesia, [email protected] UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency.  Received file:                Reviewer's Comments: Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 6.0/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 7.5/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Dr. Govind Vyas, Compliance & Regulatory Officer Inva-Tech Pharmaceuticals LLC, New-Jersey, USA, [email protected] Dr. Mohammad Bayan,  Faculty of Pharmacy, Philadelphia University, P.O. Box: 1 Philadelphia University 19392 Jordan, [email protected] Dr. Sally A. El-Zahaby, Pharos University in Alexandria, Egypt, [email protected]  

scholarly journals A retrospective study investigating requests for self-citation during open peer review in a general medicine journal

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Peebles ◽  
Marissa Scandlyn ◽  
Blair R. Hesp
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
General Medicine ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Medicine Journal ◽  
Objective Feedback ◽  
Review Reports

AbstractIntroductionPeer review is a volunteer process for improving the quality of publications by providing objective feedback to authors, but also presents an opportunity for reviewers to seek personal reward by requesting self-citations. Open peer review may reduce the prevalence of self-citation requests and encourage author rebuttal over accession. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of self-citation requests and their inclusion in manuscripts in a journal with open peer review.MethodsRequests for additional references to be included during peer review for articles published between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 in BMC Medicine were evaluated. Data extracted included total number of self-citations requested, self-citations that were included in the final published manuscript and manuscripts that included at least one self-citation, and compared with corresponding data on independent citations.ResultsIn total, 932 peer review reports from 373 manuscripts were analysed. At least one additional citation was requested in 25.9% (n=241) of reports. Self-citation requests were included in 44.4% of reports requesting additional citations (11.5% of all reports). Requests for self-citation were significantly more likely than independent citations to be incorporated in the published manuscript (65.1% vs 52.1%; chi-square p=0.003). At the manuscript level, when requested, self-citations were incorporated in 76.6% of manuscripts (n=72; 19.3% of all manuscripts) compared with 68.5% of manuscripts with independent citation requests (n=102; 27.3% of manuscripts). A significant interaction was observed between the presence of self-citation requests and the likelihood of any citation request being incorporated (100% incorporation in manuscripts with self-citation requests alone versus 62.7–72.2% with any independent citation request; Fisher’s exact test p<0.0005).ConclusionsRequests for self-citations during the peer review process are common. The transparency of open peer review may have the unexpected effect of encouraging authors to incorporate self-citation requests by disclosing peer reviewer identity.

scholarly journals COSMETOTEXTILES AND EVALUATION OF THEIR PERFORMANCE

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evren ALGIN YAPAR ◽  
İmren ESENTÜRK ◽  
Aslı ŞAHİNER ◽  
Ece HALAT ◽  
Bilge Ahsen KARA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Woven Fabrics ◽  
Woven Fabric ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
Unique System ◽  
Standards And Regulations ◽  
Outer Appearance ◽  
Review Reports

Cosmetotextiles are textile products that release a cosmetic substance or formulation in the application area for cosmetic purposes. Cosmetic substances or formulations loaded carriers such as micro or nano-sized microcapsules, microsphere, cyclodextrin, liposome, solid lipid nanoparticles, are attached or processed on textile to prepare cosmetotextiles. As a textile material woven fabric, knitted fabric and non-woven fabrics are used for cosmetotextiles, and within this scope, relevant cosmetic and textile standards and regulations are taken into account in the performance evaluation of products, especially for effectiveness and safety. Important standards for cosmetotextiles include PD CEN/TR 15917:2009, ISO 3175-1, ISO 3758, ISO 6330 and ISO 22716. PD CEN/TR 15917:2009 includes the tests for cosmetic claim substation such as skin moisturizing, body firming, assessment of outer appearance of cellulite etc. The PD CEN/TR 15917:2009 standard specifies the general properties, claimed effects, safety assessment and labeling of slimming, moisturizing and regenerating preparations that fall into the cosmetotextile class.                   Peer Review History: Received: 13 May 2021; Revised: 19 June; Accepted: 29 June, Available online: 15 July 2021 Academic Editor: Dr. Asia Selman Abdullah,  Al-Razi university, Department of Pharmacy, Yemen, [email protected] UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency.  Received file:                Reviewer's Comments: Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 6.0/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 7.5/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Dr. George Zhu, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, [email protected] Dr. Mohamed Salama, Modern University for Technology & Information, Egypt, [email protected]  

scholarly journals PHYTOCHEMICAL PURIFICATION OF ACTIVE CONSTITUENTS ISOLATED FROM ROOT OF THE MEDICINAL HERB, CARALLUMA QUADRANGULA

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamal AN. Al-Mahweety ◽  
Ammer Al-Fadaly ◽  
Waled Abdo Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Folk Medicine ◽  
Phytochemical Analysis ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
Unique System ◽  
Pure Compounds ◽  
Phytochemical Compounds ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
E Mail

Objective: Present study aim for the purification of quantitative phytochemical compounds from roots of  Caralluma quadrangula belongs to the family Asclepiadaceae. This type of plants can be use as folk medicine  to take care of wide diversity of health  and diseases situation. Methods: Preliminary phytochemical analysis for different type of chemical compounds by using various  chromatographic techniques. The phytochemical characterizations were evaluated by nuclear magnetic resonance and mass spectrometry. Results: The quantitative phytochemical analysis of this species exhibited the presence four pure compounds,  hydroxyoplopan-4-one (4.5 mg), dihydroxyeudesm-4(15)-ene (5.0 mg), and quercetin- rhamnopyranosyl-D-glucopyranose (Rutin) (7.0 mg). Conclusion: From this study, it can be concluded that the species found four pure compounds from C. quadrangula. Peer Review History: Received 25 July 2020; Revised 10 August; Accepted 28 August, Available online 15 September 2020 UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency. Received file Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 5.0/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 7.5/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Name: Marwa  A. A. Fayed Affiliation: Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Sadat City, Egypt E-mail: [email protected]   Name: Dr. Ali Gamal Ahmed Al-kaf Affiliation: Sana'a university, Yemen E-mail: [email protected]   Name: Ahmad Najib Affiliation: Department of Pharmacognosy-Phytochemystry Universitas Muslim Indonesia-Indonesia E-mail: [email protected]   Comments of reviewer(s): Similar Articles: A STUDY OF PHYTOCHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS IN CARALLUMA QUADRANGULA PHARMACOGNOSTIC EVALUATION OF GOMPHRENA SERRATA ROOT

scholarly journals Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecilia Superchi ◽  
José Antonio González ◽  
Ivan Solà ◽  
Erik Cobo ◽  
Darko Hren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Reports
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document