scholarly journals Boom & Bust: Bird Stories for a Dry Country

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 70
Author(s):  
Stephen J. J. F. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Population Dynamics ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Extended Time ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Extended Time Period

As the subtitle says, this is a book of bird stories. The overall theme examines the population dynamics and evolution of some Australian inland birds in 12 separate essays, each by a different author or group of authors. It is apparent that the dates of preparation of these chapters cover an extended time period, one prepared by an author who died in 2001, and there is little attempt to integrate the stories. Each of the essays is well referenced and written by a respected authority on the bird, birds or topic that are the subject of the essay. In this way the book is authoritative, but it is also innovative, because it is clear that peer review has not been applied, or if applied then applied gently, because the authors have been allowed to speculate on the interpretations of the data they present. Modern journal editors and peer reviewers do their best to eliminate such speculation and yet it is from the presentation of such untested ideas that inquiry begins and science advances. The editors are to be applauded for taking this approach.

scholarly journals Other Types of Meaning: Relationships between Round Barrows and Landscapes from 1500 bc–ac 1086

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 665-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anwen Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Bronze Age ◽  
Extended Time ◽  
Generic Group ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Human Practices ◽  
Fresh Insight ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Extended Time Period

This paper is about Bronze Age round barrows and the ways in which they became caught up in human practices over an extended time period. At one level it belongs to a flourishing body of work that examines the ‘re-use’ or ‘biography’ of prehistoric monuments. Rather than treating the latter as a generic group, however, this study focuses on chronologies of one specific monument type—round barrows—over a 2600-year period from 1500 bc–ac 1086. By bringing together evidence and interpretations generated mainly within period specialisms, significant homogeneities are revealed in terms of how activities at prehistoric monuments have previously been understood. The possibilities for seeking out different interpretative ground are duly explored. Using a case study from the east of England and drawing on evidence and ideas from much more broadly, the approach taken places particular emphasis on examining relationships between round barrows and other aspects of landscape. The findings offer fresh insight into the temporality of activities undertaken at round barrows, question existing characterizations of past people's historical understandings, and explore the long-term coherence of ‘round barrows’ as a category.

scholarly journals New solar modulation modeling of the galactic proton flux measured by the AMS02 and PAMELA experiments

2019 ◽  
Vol 209 ◽  
pp. 01032
Author(s):  
E. Fiandrini ◽  
B. Bertucci ◽  
N. Tomassetti ◽  
B. Khiali
Keyword(s):  
Cosmic Rays ◽  
Charged Particles ◽  
Galactic Cosmic Rays ◽  
Proton Flux ◽  
Solar Modulation ◽  
Extended Time ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Modulation Model ◽  
Spectrum Characteristics ◽  
Extended Time Period

A thorough understanding of solar effects on the galactic cosmic rays is relevant both to infer the local interstellar spectrum characteristics and to investigate the dynamics of charged particles in the heliosphere. We present a newly developed numerical modulation model to study the transport of galactic protons in the heliosphere. The model was applied to the 27-day averaged galactic proton flux recently released by the PAMELA and AMS02 experiments, covering an extended time period from mid-2006 to mid-2017.

Comparison of Modelled Distribution of Thermal Fields at Seasonal Ground Storage Segments

2014 ◽  
Vol 899 ◽  
pp. 205-208
Author(s):  
Radek Partika ◽  
Miloš Kalousek
Keyword(s):  
Solar Energy ◽  
Material Properties ◽  
Energy Demand ◽  
Seasonal Distribution ◽  
Distance Distribution ◽  
Extended Time ◽  
Thermal Fields ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Optimal Distance ◽  
Extended Time Period

In order to reduce the energy demand leads to the creation of alternative ways, how to store energy for extended time period and cover starting part of winter term with heating. One possibly way is to store solar energy in the soil under and near the building. This article focuses on comparing the distribution and thermal unsteady field in the seasonal distribution elements of the ground storage located under the building. The comparison will occurred change of accumulated material properties and optimal distance distribution pipes or elements, so as to create the most efficient storing systems.

scholarly journals The Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen A Gallo ◽  
Lisa A Thompson ◽  
Karen B Schmaling ◽  
Scott R Glisson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Funding Agency ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Integral Role ◽  
Comprehensive Survey ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Grant Proposals

AbstractScientific peer reviewers play an integral role in the grant selection process, yet very little has been reported on the levels of participation or the motivations of scientists to take part in peer review. AIBS developed a comprehensive peer review survey that examined the motivations and levels of participation of grant reviewers. The survey was disseminated to 13,091 scientists in AIBS’s proprietary database. Of the 874 respondents, 76% indicated they had reviewed grant applications in the last 3 years; however, the number of reviews was unevenly distributed across this sample. Higher review loads were associated with respondents who had submitted more grant proposals over this time period, some of whom were likely to be study section members for large funding agencies. The most prevalent reason to participate in a review was to give back to the scientific community (especially among frequent grant submitters) and the most common reason to decline an invitation to review was lack of time. Interestingly, few suggested that expectation from the funding agency was a motivation to review. Most felt that review participation positively influenced their careers through improving grantsmanship and exposure to new scientific ideas. Of those who reviewed, respondents reported dedicating 2-5% of their total annual work time to grant review and, based on their self-reported maximum review loads, it is estimated they are participating at 56%-89% of their capacity, which may have important implications regarding the sustainability of the system. Overall, it is clear that participation in peer review is uneven and in some cases near capacity, and more needs to be done to create new motivations and incentives to increase the future pool of reviewers.

scholarly journals Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. García ◽  
Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez ◽  
J. Fdez-Valdivia
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Hybrid Mode ◽  
Optimal Price ◽  
Benchmark Scenario ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Review Model

AbstractGiven how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay.

scholarly journals Journal editors’ perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e035600
Author(s):  
Ketevan Glonti ◽  
Isabelle Boutron ◽  
David Moher ◽  
Darko Hren
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
General Medicine ◽  
Personal Communication ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Communication Practices

ObjectiveTo generate an understanding of the communication practices that might influence the peer-review process in biomedical journals.MethodRecruitment was based on purposive maximum variation sampling. We conducted semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis method.Participants56 journal editors from general medicine (n=13) and specialty (n=43) biomedical journals. Most were editor-in-chiefs (n=39), men (n=40) and worked part time (n=50).ResultsOur analysis generated four themes (1) providing minimal guidance to peer reviewers—two subthemes described the way journal editors rationalised their behaviour: (a) peer reviewers should know without guidelines how to review and (b) detailed guidance and structure might have a negative effect; (2) communication strategies of engagement with peer reviewers—two opposing strategies that journal editors employed to handle peer reviewers: (a) use of direct and personal communication to motivate peer reviewers and (b) use of indirect communication to avoid conflict; (3) concerns about impact of review model on communication—maintenance of anonymity as a means of facilitating critical and unburdened communication and minimising biases and (4) different practices in the moderation of communication between authors and peer reviewers—some journal editors actively interjected themselves into the communication chain to guide authors through peer reviewers’ comments, others remained at a distance, leaving it to the authors to work through peer reviewers’ comments.ConclusionsThese journal editors’ descriptions reveal several communication practices that might have a significant impact on the peer-review process. Editorial strategies to manage miscommunication are discussed. Further research on these proposed strategies and on communication practices from the point of view of authors and peer reviewers is warranted.

scholarly journals PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL EDITORS’ VIEWS ON REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth M. Oehrlein ◽  
Jennifer S. Graff ◽  
Eleanor M. Perfetto ◽  
C. Daniel Mullins ◽  
Robert W. Dubois ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Real World ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Services Research ◽  
Telephone Interviews ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Real World Evidence ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Study Designs

Objectives: Peer-review publication is a critical step to the translation and dissemination of research results into clinical practice guidelines, health technology assessment (HTA) and payment policies, and clinical care. The objective of this study was to examine current views of journal editors regarding: (i) The value of real-world evidence (RWE) and how it compares with other types of studies; (ii) Education and/or resources journal editors provide to their peer reviewers or perceive as needed for authors, reviewers, and editors related to RWE.Methods: Journal editors’ views on the value of RWE and editorial procedures for RWE manuscripts were obtained through telephone interviews, a survey, and in-person, roundtable discussion.Results: In total, seventy-nine journals were approached, resulting in fifteen telephone interviews, seventeen survey responses and eight roundtable participants. RWE was considered valuable by all interviewed editors (n = 15). Characteristics of high-quality RWE manuscripts included: novelty/relevance, rigorous methodology, and alignment of data to research question. Editors experience challenges finding peer reviewers; however, these challenges persist across all study designs. Journals generally do not provide guidance, assistance, or training for reviewers, including for RWE studies. Health policy/health services research (HSR) editors were more likely than specialty or general medicine editors to participate in this study, potentially indicating that HSR researchers are more comfortable/interested in RWE.Conclusions: Editors report favorable views of RWE studies provided studies examine important questions and are methodologically rigorous. Improving peer-review processes across all study designs, has the potential to improve the evidence base for decision making, including HTA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document