scholarly journals Peer review versus public review ? new possibilities of on-line publishing!

2002 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
L VONSEGESSER
Keyword(s):  
Physics World ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 25-25
Author(s):  
Alexander A Berezin
Keyword(s):  

KIMIKA ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Florecita De Guzman

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?


2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dale J. Benos ◽  
Edlira Bashari ◽  
Jose M. Chaves ◽  
Amit Gaggar ◽  
Niren Kapoor ◽  
...  

This article traces the history of peer review of scientific publications, plotting the development of the process from its inception to its present-day application. We discuss the merits of peer review and its weaknesses, both perceived and real, as well as the practicalities of several major proposed changes to the system. It is our hope that readers will gain a better appreciation of the complexities of the process and, when serving as reviewers themselves, will do so in a manner that will enhance the utility of the exercise. We also propose the development of an international on-line training program for accreditation of potential referees.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (27) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Jovan Shopovski ◽  
Robert W. McGee ◽  
Daniel B. Hier

Despite its weaknesses, peer review is our best gatekeeper of rigorous science. With the advent of on-line and open-access publishing, a vigorous debate has ensued over the timeliness of peer review. Many of us remember, and some still face, long peer review and publishing timeframes. Ware and Mabe (2015) estimated that a reviewer needs from several hours to a day to carefully prepare a peer review. Even so, the time from submission to first decision varies from 8 weeks to 18 weeks and varies by academic discipline and journal. Although the slowness of the peer review process has been critiqued (Lotriet, 2012), long ingrained processes have been slow to change. The development of the open access publishing has brought to the forefront the need to speed the peer review process and reduce the time to publication. However, short peer review times have been cited as one of the hallmarks of predatory journals (Cobey at al. 2018). Some have suggested that a faster and more agile peer review process may undermine the quality of published research (Bagdasarian et al. 2020).


2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1109-1109
Author(s):  
Zhang Li-Guo

RETRACTION The Publisher and Editor have retracted this article [1] in accordance with good ethical practices. After a thorough investigations we believe that the peer review process was compromised. The article was published on-line on 31-12-2014.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document