Newton's effect on scientific standards

1978 ◽  
pp. 193-222 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Standards

Perspectives

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Armin Schnider
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Investigation ◽  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
False Memories ◽  
Experimental Basis ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Scientific Standards

This chapter summarizes current interpretations of all forms of confabulations discussed in the book and reviews the relationship between the four forms of memory-related confabulations. Experimental investigation has confirmed the dissociation between various types of false memories and considerably advanced the understanding of the mechanisms of some forms of confabulation, in particular behaviourally spontaneous confabulation and false statements in anosognosia. Overall, experimental evidence is scarce; many models have no controlled experimental basis or extend their proposed range of application well beyond the empirical evidence. The chapter concludes with a call for heightened respect of basic scientific standards in the research on confabulation.

Commentary: A Qualitative Analysis of Newspaper Polls

1988 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 105-114
Author(s):  
David Pearce Demers
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Education And Training ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Long Run ◽  
News Organizations ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
And Training

Previous research and this study's data suggest newspaper polls often fall short of “scientific” standards. Part of the problem is that many newspapers rely heavily on their news staff for many key aspects in the research process, including data analysis. News organizations are encouraged to rely more on “experts,” but for the long run they need to implement programs and policies that give journalists themselves the education and training necessary to handle all phases of the research process.

scholarly journals Technical writing as part of project management for engineers: using a writing-process approach to teach disciplinary writing requirements

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-145
Author(s):  
Ruth Wiederkehr ◽  
Marie-Thérèse Rudolf von Rohr
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Students ◽  
Technical Writing ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Process Approach ◽  
Formative Feedback ◽  
Project Work ◽  
Disciplinary Writing ◽  
Environmental Technology ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Scientific Standards

This article focuses on how formative feedback can be used to help engineering students write precise and coherent management summaries that appeal to a mixed audience. Management summaries are especially challenging to master as students must strive for a balance between adhering to scientific standards and being intelligible for a wider non-expert readership. Students of Energy and Environmental Technology at the school of engineering (FHNW) in Switzerland write a total of six technical reports about their project work (mostly in German). By analysing two management summaries, the focus is laid on the lecturers’ approach of relying on formative feedback which supports and accompanies the students’ iterative writing processes. It is shown how in early semesters lecturers provide hands-on guidance, such as suggesting discourse markers or pinpointing vague references to sharpen students’ awareness of the need to write as concisely as possible for mixed audiences.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2090 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Conference Management ◽  
Check System ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

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 • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? • Conference submission management system: IDAS Conference management System • Number of submissions received: 336 • Number of submissions sent for review: 315 • Number of submissions accepted: 189 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 56.25% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: more than 600 • Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system): We use Turnitin system for plagiarism checking • Contact person for queries: Dimitrios Vlachos Associate Professor, University of Peloponnese Email: [email protected] Tel: +30 6944 371526

scholarly journals Peer-Review Declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 869 (1) ◽  
pp. 011003
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Preliminary Review ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Conference Series ◽  
Scientific Standards

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 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: Double-blind • Number of submissions received: 94 papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 94 papers • Number of submissions accepted: 74 papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 78.72% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 papers • Total number of reviewers involved: 31 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: 1. Preliminary review 2. The papers passed the first review will be reviewed again from the following aspects: originality, innovation, technical soundness, and applicability Ilham Zulfahmi Email: [email protected] Universitas Syiah Kuala

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 888 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Conference Series ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 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 • Conference submission management system: via email [email protected], managed by Indri Juliyarsi, Robi Amizar, Sri Melia, and Ade Sukma • Number of submissions received: 162 • Number of submissions sent for review: 113 • Number of submissions accepted: 85 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 52,47 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 18 • Any additional info on review process: proofread and turnitin • Contact person for queries: Name: Dr. Indri Juliyarsi Affiliation: Universitas Andalas Email: [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 905 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Research And Development ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Conference Management ◽  
Development Center ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Maximum Threshold

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 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: Double-blind with the opportunity to resubmit after revisions • Conference submission management system: Microsoft’s Conference Management Toolkit (Microsoft CMT). The submission url is https://cmt3.research.microsoft.com/User/Login?ReturnUrl=%2FICSAE2021 • Number of submissions received: 224 • Number of submissions sent for review: 198 • Number of submissions accepted: 148 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 66.07% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 18 • Any additional info on the review process: all papers were checked for its similarity using Turnitin, and 25% similar was set as maximum threshold. • Contact person for queries: Name: Prof. Sri Hartati Affiliation: Research and Development Center for Biotechnology and Biodiversity (P3BB) Universitas Sebelas Maret Email: [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 941 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Scientific Content ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Content Quality ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Academic Debate

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 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: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: MeisterTask CRM • Number of submissions received: 72 • Number of submissions sent for review: 57 • Number of submissions accepted: 39 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 54% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 6 • Any additional info on review process: In general, each article was checked for scientific content, quality of the English language and technical formatting. Reviewers rated the following (5 excellent, 1 poor): Relevance to the themes; Contribution to academic debate; Structure of the paper; Standard of English; Appropriateness of abstract; Appropriateness and number of keywords; Appropriateness of the research/study method; Literature review; Relevance and clarity of drawings, graphs, and tables; Results and findings; Discussion and conclusions; Reference list. In the absence of a scientific component of an article, authors right to revision was rejected. In other cases, correction notes were sent to authors. • Contact person for queries: Anastasia Kulachinskaya, [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2056 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
State University ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Organizations ◽  
Virtual Conference ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

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) Single-blind • Conference submission management system: Morressier virtual conference and publishing platform • Number of submissions received: 76 • Number of submissions sent for review: 76 • Number of submissions accepted: 71 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 93.4 • Average number of reviews per paper: 1 • Total number of reviewers involved: 8 • Any additional info on review process: Typical review questionnaire like in leading scientific journals and detailed review about value and novelty of the publications reviewed. The Referees are from universities and scientific organizations from Russia, Byelorussia, China, Canada, India. • Contact person for queries: Name : Professor Victor Belyaev Affiliation: Moscow Region State University (MRSU) Email : [email protected]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document