Equity in science: advocating for a triple-blind review system

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (11) ◽  
pp. 957-959
Author(s):  
Stephanie Brodie ◽  
André Frainer ◽  
Maria Grazia Pennino ◽  
Shan Jiang ◽  
Laura Kaikkonen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 158-159
Author(s):  
Paul De Boeck

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 222-245
Author(s):  
Cristine Do C.S. B. de Moraes ◽  
Maria Imaculada De Lima Montebelo ◽  
Rosana Borges Zaccaria ◽  
Graziela Oste Graziano Cremonezi

Objective: This study sought to identify the main aspects related to students' expectations regarding higher education.Method: The research was conducted in the Capes (Coordination for Improvement of Higher Education Personnel), in the last 10 years, through blind review system. The scientific methods used were SLR (Systematic Literature Review), meta-analysis (Cooper, 2016) and content analysis (Bardin, 2011).Originality / Relevance: Despite recent surveys on higher education, the originality of the study can be justified by the lack of studies addressing the expectation on higher education using meta-analysis.Results: The article identifies the gaps that exist between the offer made by the HEIs (Higher Education Institutions) and what is really expected by students towards higher education. Such comprehension can contribute to improve the marketing strategies, as well as the management of the HEI services, by understanding the factors that may affect the student behavior.Theoretical / Methodological Contributions: This research contributes to the understanding of the changes that have affected the education field, especially higher education, in which is noticed the increasing dropout and mismatch between the objectives of the subjects involved, as well as the profound ongoing changes in the social, economic and technological contexts. Therefore, it serves as a subsidy for marketing studies, especially on consumer behavior, as well as to surveys related to the higher education.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2104 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002

All conference organizers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) The SNPF 2021 article review process was carried out using a single-blind review system. The number of papers submitted was 84 articles. The number of SNPF 2021 reviewers is 14 people. One reviewer reviewed one article. The review process was done via email and or OCS. The article review results were returned to the authors for revision within a certain period of time. The author sent the revised results, and the plagiarism checked results of the article. The editor then rechecked the revision result. If suitable, it would be forwarded to the editor, either for plagiarism, language, or template. • Conference submission management system: OCS (http://snpfmotogpe.ulm.ac.id/ocs/index.php/snpf/2021) • The number of submissions received: There were 84 articles submitted to SNPF 2021 • The number of submissions sent for review: There were 84 articles reviewed by reviewers of SNPF 2021. • The number of submissions accepted: There were 40 articles accepted for recommendation/publication to JPCS IOP Publishing. • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 47,61% • The average number of reviews per paper: One article was reviewed four times: content review 2x, language review 1x, and template review 1x. • The total number of reviewers involved: There were 14 reviewers (content review), 10 editors (content and template review), and 4 people (language review) • Any additional info on the review process: The author sent the revised article along with the similarity check (maximum 20%). A similarity check was also carried out using Turnitin (maximum 20%) when an article was declared fit for publication. So, the similarity check was done two times. • Contact person for queries: +628975586104 (Misbah) Universitas Lambung Mangkurat [email protected]


2021 ◽  
Vol 2106 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) The ICMSS 2021 article review process was carried out using a single-blind review system. One reviewer reviewed 1 article. The number of papers submitted was 52 articles. The number of ICMSS 2021 reviewers is 8 people. 1 article reviewed by 1 reviewer. The review process is done via email and or OCS. The results of the review of the article are returned to the author for revision within a certain period of time. The author sends the revised results and the plagiarism check results of the article. The editor then rechecks the revision result. If it is suitable, it will be forwarded to the editor, whether it is checked for plagiarism, language, or template. • Conference submission management system: OCS (https://conference.ulm.ac.id/index.php/icmss/icmss/) • Number of submissions received: There are 50 articles submitted to ICMSS 2021 • Number of submissions sent for review: There are 50 articles reviewed by reviewers ICMSS 2021. • Number of submissions accepted: 31 articles were accepted for recommendation/publication to JPCS IOP Publishing. • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 62% • Average number of reviews per paper: One article was reviewed 4 times, reviewed content twice, reviews related to language 1x, and review template 1x. • Total number of reviewers involved: There are 8 reviewers (review content), There are 5 editors (review content and templates), and 6 people (review language) • Any additional info on review process: The author sends the revised article along with the similarity check (maximum 20%). When an article is declared fit for publication, a similarity check is also carried out using Turnitin (maximum 20%). So, the similarity check is done 2 times. • Contact person for queries: +628975586104 (Misbah) [email protected] Universitas Lambung Mangkurat


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 328-338
Author(s):  
cem eyerci

The peer-review system as a critical tool in academic processes is regarded to be essential. It is not used only to evaluate the manuscripts submitted to the journals but also in tenure decisions, academic promotions, and grant applications. However, during the last few decades, the system has also become a subject of academic research and criticized from various aspects. Many scholars studied the process and presented biases emerging due to the characteristics of the authors and reviewers. In this paper, the journals published by the faculties of economics and administrative sciences and the faculties of political sciences and indexed by TR Dizin are studied. It is observed that the language of the article, number, title, gender, and institutional affiliation of the authors do not influence the acceptance period. However, there is a difference between the average acceptance periods of the journals, which are quite similar. Moreover, being a faculty member of the publisher provides a significantly shorter acceptance period on average. The reason for such differentiation may be either the existence of a considerable extent of bias at the editorial stages of the process or the communication of the editors with the reviewers in a way that influences the process.


Author(s):  
Geoffrey T. Fosgate ◽  
Marcus G. Doherr ◽  
Polychronis Kostoulas

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liudmila Vyacheslavovna Fomina ◽  
Саидова Феруза Бахтияровна

"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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document