scholarly journals The peer-review process in English-language advertising journals: a survey of US academics

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 301-313
Author(s):  
Owen Kulemeka
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 890 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Marine Science ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science has been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. The review processes 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) Double-blind: All papers came through the basic review which included an initial technical criteria check (paper field, structure of submission, adherence to the submission instructions, English language usage and the ethics of scientific writing including a check for the similarity rate). Any papers out of the scope or containing plagiarism were rejected directly. The initial technical criteria check by the editors. The accepted papers came through peer review process by two professional experts in the related subject area. After the peer review process was complete, the editors decide that the papers will be accepted for publication. • Conference submission management system: Email 2nd International Conference on Fisheries and Marine submission on https://unkhair.ac.id/ • Number of submissions received: 150 • Number of submissions sent for review: 88 • Number of submissions accepted: 73 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 48% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 35 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: [email protected] Dr. Najamuddin Department of Marine Science, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Khairun University, Indonesia

Blind versus Nonblind Review: Survey of Selected Medical Journals

1988 ◽  
Vol 22 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 601-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Cleary ◽  
Bruce Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Select Group ◽  
Lengthy Process

The publication of scientific research in medical journals is a lengthy process. Submitted manuscripts are often reviewed by two or more outside reviewers who evaluate each manuscript for publication acceptability. The process of manuscript evaluation by an editor-selected reviewer (“peers” or “referees”) is termed “peer review.” One issue involving the peer-review process is the use of blind versus nonblind referees. The purpose of this survey was to determine the percentage of a select group of medicine-related journals that blind their reviewers. We surveyed 114 English language journals. Journal editors were sent a survey that asked two questions: (1) are the referees who review your manuscripts blinded to the identity of the authors? and (2) is the editor blinded to the identity of the authors until after the review of the manuscripts is complete? Ninety-six of 114 (84.2 percent) surveys were returned. Ten journals published invited manuscripts only and were excluded from the survey. Only 18.6 percent (16 of 86) of the journals currently blind referees. None of the journals' editors were blind to the identity of the manuscripts' authors.

scholarly journals Advice for New Authors about the Submission of Articles / Conseils pour les nouveaux auteurs sur la soumission d’articles

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Elson ◽  
François Brouard
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Canadian Journal ◽  
English Language ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Social Economy ◽  
French Language ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Site Web ◽  
Over Time

ABSTRACTNew authors often see the publication process as a mystery that only gets revealed in bits and pieces over time. This article aims to present some tips and ideas to new authors to facilitate the submission of an article to Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research / Revue canadienne de re­cherche sur les OSBL et l’économie sociale (ANSERJ). It describes the review process and highlights some key milestones. As the English Language and French Language editors for ANSERJ, we would like to encourage new contributors, and thus we will highlight specific items as they apply to ANSERJ. These guidelines complement the author guidelines already posted on the ANSERJ website. Our advice may apply to authors interested in other journals with a peer review process. RÉSUMÉLes nouveaux auteurs considèrent souvent le processus de publication comme un mystère qui se découvre au fil du temps. Cet article vise à présenter certains conseils et réflexions pour faciliter la soumission d’un article  à la Revue canadienne de re­cherche sur les OSBL et l’économie sociale / Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research (ANSERJ). Il décrit le processus de publication et ses étapes principales. À titre de rédacteurs en chef d’ANSERJ, nous aimerions encourager les nouveaux chercheurs, contribuer au débat par quelques conseils et réflexions et souligner certains éléments spécifiques à notre revue. Les présentes réflexions complètent les directives déjà présentes sur le site web de la revue. Ils peuvent s’appliquer à des auteurs intéressés par d’autres revues avec comité de lecture.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document