scholarly journals Disseminating Scientific Results in the Age of Rapid Communication

Eos ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shobha Kondragunta ◽  
David Crisp ◽  
Claus Zehner
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Rapid Communication ◽  
Scientific Results

Modernizing the peer review process and clarifying how to use and understand open data are two essential ways to make sure our science is accurate and accurately presented.

Reviewing/editing a manuscript for scientific publication

1998 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 377-382
Author(s):  
Calvin Chong
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Processing System ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
System A ◽  
Good Review ◽  
Scientific Results

The peer review process is the basis of evaluation or "quality control" in modern science. Peer review ensures publication of valid scientific results that are appropriately presented and interpreted. As scientists, we benefit from and are expected to review the work of our colleagues. A request to review a manuscript recognizes the reviewer's expertise as an authority or leader in a field of research. The capacity to conduct a good review enhances one's reputation and career advancement, and is well worth the effort expended. Manuscripts submitted to the Agricultural Institute of Canada (AIC) scientific journals are logged and monitored through a centralized processing system. A primary goal of the journals is to review manuscripts within 90 d of submission. Good reviews provide a constructive and well-reasoned appraisal of a manuscript phrased in the spirit of professional courtesy and confidentiality. Both anonymity of the reviewer and confidentiality of manuscript contents must be maintained in the peer review process. Any question of conflict of interest or ethical standing of a reviewer or duplication of publication should be directed to the editor immediately. Editors, authors, and reviewers are important partners in the peer review process. Key words: Peer review, manuscript processing, scientific journals

Getting Involved in the Peer Review Process

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenya Malcolm ◽  
Allison Groenendyk ◽  
Mary Cwik ◽  
Alisa Beyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

Reference Conundrum: The Broad Definition of Peer-Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Fullerton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
The Core ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Reference Interactions ◽  
Definition Of

For years, the gold-standard in academic publishing has been the peer-review process, and for the most part, peer-review remains a safeguard to authors publishing intentionally biased, misleading, and inaccurate information. Its purpose is to hold researchers accountable to the publishing standards of that field, including proper methodology, accurate literature reviews, etc. This presentation will establish the core tenants of peer-review, discuss if certain types of publications should be able to qualify as such, offer possible solutions, and discuss how this affects a librarian's reference interactions.

Judges and defendants

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianfranco Pacchioni
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Contemporary Science ◽  
The Social ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Scientific Publishers

This chapter explores how validation of new results works in science. It also looks at the peer-review process, both pros and cons, as well as scientific communication, scientific journals, and scientific publishers. We give an assessment of the total number of existing journals with peer review. Other topics discussed include the phenomenon of open access, predatory journals and their impact on contemporary science, and the market of scientific publications. Finally, we touch on degenerative phenomena, such as the market of co-authors, bogus papers, and irrelevant and wrong studies, as well as the problem and the social cost of irreproducible results.

Academic knowledge production and prefigurative politics

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (267-268) ◽  
pp. 163-167
Author(s):  
Beatriz P. Lorente
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Structural Characteristic ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Means And Ends ◽  
Sociology Of Language ◽  
Prefigurative Politics ◽  
Access Model

Abstract Inequality is the pervasive structural characteristic of academic knowledge production. To dismantle this inequality, the challenge raised by prefigurative politics which is based on an ethos of congruence between means and ends must be taken up by the International Journal of the Sociology of Language. The IJSL’s peer review process, its academic conventions and its access model can potentially be spaces for concrete practices that prefigure parity in academic knowledge production.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document