The Honor of the "Invitation" to Participate in the Editorial Review Process

2001 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-2
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Editorial Review

The quality of internet information on psychosis treatment for Australian people (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kay Wilhelm ◽  
Tonelle Handley ◽  
Catherine McHugh McHugh ◽  
David Lowenstein ◽  
Kristy Arrold
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Substantial Improvement ◽  
Website Quality ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Internet Information ◽  
Editorial Review ◽  
Assess Quality ◽  
Available Information ◽  
Over Time

BACKGROUND The internet is increasingly seen as an important source of health information for consumers and their families. Accessing information related to their illness and treatment enables consumers to more confidently discuss their health and treatments with their doctors, but the abundance of readily available information also means can be confusing in terms of how reliable the information to enable consumers, families and clinicians to participate in the decision-making process of their care. OBJECTIVE The current study aimed to rate the quality of websites with psychosis-related information (using a validated instrument (DISCERN) and purpose-developed Psychosis Website Quality Checklist (PWQC) to assess quality over time and aid professionals in directing consumers to the best available information. METHODS Entering search terms ‘psychotic’, ‘psychosis’, ‘schizophrenia’, ‘delusion’, ‘hallucination’ into the search engine Google (www.google.com.au) provided 25 websites evaluated by DISCERN and PWQC at two time points, January-March 2014, and January-March 2018, by three diverse health professionals. RESULTS Only the six highest ranked achieved DISCERN scores indicating “good” quality. The overall mean scores of websites were 43.96 (SD=12.08) indicating “fair” quality. PWQC ratings were high on “availability and usability” but poor on “credibility,” “currency,” and “breadth and accuracy”, with no substantial improvement quality over time. Having an editorial/ review process (56% of websites) was significantly associated with higher quality scores on both scales. CONCLUSIONS The quality of available information was ‘fair’ and had not significantly improved over time. While higher-quality websites exist, there is no easy way to assess this on face value. Having a readily identifiable editorial/review process was one indicator of website quality. CLINICALTRIAL Not applicable

On the Need for Users of the Powder Diffraction File to Update Regularly

1987 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ron Jenkins ◽  
Mark Holomany ◽  
Winnie Wong-Ng
Keyword(s):  
Powder Diffraction ◽  
Diffraction Data ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Quality Of Data ◽  
Powder Diffraction File ◽  
Editorial Review

AbstractThe International Centre for Diffraction Data has an ongoing program to ensure the quality of data in the Powder Diffraction File (PDF) reflects current requirements of the powder diffraction community. Annual updates are made available, comprising of around 1800 new patterns and 200 replacement patterns, but current statistics indicate that only about 20% of users of the PDF take advantage of these updates. This paper reviews changes which have been inplemented in the editorial review process to continuously monitor and review pattern quality and gives examples of better data which have resulted from these changes.

Analysis of the editorial review process of the Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology

2018 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 124-128
Author(s):  
Robert S. Danziger ◽  
Rachel K. Nordgren ◽  
Manmeet Singh ◽  
R. John Solaro ◽  
Michael L. Berbaum
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Editorial Review

scholarly journals A Prospective View of the Journal of Sport (and Exercise) Psychology

1986 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 164-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane L. Gill
Keyword(s):  
Sport Psychology ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Exercise Behavior ◽  
Exercise Psychology ◽  
Research Methodologies ◽  
Sport And Exercise ◽  
Editorial Review ◽  
General Scope

This article has two major purposes, to discuss the general scope and direction of the Journal of Sport Psychology (JSP) and to describe the basic editorial review process. During its first 7 years the journal has developed into the premier scientific publication in sport psychology. The journal will continue to emphasize theoretically based research. Various psychological approaches and research methodologies are appropriate as long as the information advances our understanding of sport and exercise behavior. The typical editorial and review processes are described for the benefit of prospective authors who may wish to become familiar with these standards and procedures before submitting manuscripts to JSP.

Successful authors’ views on the editorial review processes of accounting journals

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 411-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph W. Adler ◽  
Gregory Liyanarachchi
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Past ◽  
Public Scrutiny ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Editorial Review ◽  
Editorial Decisions ◽  
Past Experiences ◽  
Geographical Locations

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report successful authors’ views about the editorial review processes of a set of 42 accounting journals. The two main objectives are: to enlighten editors and journal publishers in their quest to improve their journals’ editorial review processes and to inform prospective authors about the past experiences successful authors have had with the 42 accounting journals. Design/methodology/approach – A Webmail survey was used to collect data about authors’ experiences with publishing in one of the 42 accounting journals. A total of 856 responses (40 per cent response rate) was received. Various statistical analyses were used to explore a range of editorial review process features, including the timeliness of editorial feedback, timeliness of publishing accepted manuscripts, quality of the feedback provided and performance of the editor. Findings – Authors were found to be generally quite satisfied with the editorial review processes of the journals in which they published. There were, however, notable leaders and laggards observed among the 42 journal titles. The survey findings also revealed that many journals use the practice of basing their editorial decisions on the comments of a single reviewer. In fact, this practice is most prevalent among the journals that are commonly perceived as the field’s “top” journals. These and other editorial review results – for example, comparisons between journal-tiers, geographical locations of editorial review offices and journal specialties – are discussed. Originality/value – This paper extends and moves well beyond Adler and Liyanarachchi (2011), by exploring such additional author perceptions of the editorial review process as the performance of journal editors, the use of multiple reviewers and reviewers’ reporting of the typical faults/weaknesses in the papers they read. Exposing to public scrutiny an academic discipline’s editorial review processes is quite common in some fields of research, most notably medicine. Doing so in the accounting discipline addresses a need that many of the respondents felt was highly necessary and long overdue. While authors will benefit from the paper’s insights, editors and publishers are expected to as well.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document