scholarly journals Preface

2021 ◽  
Vol 2065 (1) ◽  
pp. 011001
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Conference Program ◽  
Valuable Contribution ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Electron Devices ◽  
Conference Committee ◽  
Good Exposure

2021 International Conference on Electron Devices and Applications (ICEDA 2021) was held online during August 14-16, 2021. Due to the evolving public health concerns and travel advisories issued for the avoidance of non-essential travel in view of COVID-19, the conference ICEDA 2021 has been held virtually with about 37 guests hosted on Zoom video conference platform. It was a fully synchronized online conference that had live Q&A, participants jointly listened to presentations, and attended other live events associated with the conference. The conference program was organized in 5 sessions, with 7 plenary and 37 specialized papers presented. Scientists from China, Russia, Thailand took part in the scientific forum. Each plenary speech lasted for 30 minutes, including 5 minutes for Q&A while for other sessions, there was 15 minutes for each presentation, including 2 minutes for Q&A. The interaction session was real experience to the participants and they had good exposure with foreign researchers, students and other delegates. The objective of ICEDA was to provide a platform for engineers, scientists and industrial partners to discuss and disseminate recent research findings in wide aspects of theoretical, experimental, and practical electron devices and applications fields. Professionals, experts, and scholars from various engineering disciplines were invited to share experiences, innovations, achievements and knowledge. The conference brought together academics, researchers, and practitioners with the aim of bridging the gap between theory and practice in all electron devices aspects. All papers in this proceeding were subject to peer-review by conference committee members and international reviewers. The papers were selected for the proceedings based on quality and relevance to the conference. We express our gratitude to the Organising Committee for its valuable contribution to this successful edition of ICEDA 2021. W e also express our sincere gratitude to all people who contributed to the review process and did all their best to enhance the scientific merit and quality of the Proceedings. We are also grateful to the authors for their contributions, to the speakers and participants of the ICEDA 2021. W e wish to extend our warmest welcome to all interested participants to the next ICEDA 2022. Prof. Wei Lei Southeast University, China List of titles ICEDA Committees, Statement of Peer Review are available in this Pdf.

scholarly journals Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication and Scientific Publishing

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Bishnu Bahadur Khatri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

Peer review in scholarly communication and scientific publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In the growing interest of scholarly research and publication, this paper tries to discuss about peer review process and its different types to communicate the early career researchers and academics.This paper has used the published and unpublished documents for information collection. It reveals that peer review places the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of scientific publishing. It is the system used to assess the quality of scientific research before it is published. Therefore, it concludes that peer review is used to advancing and testing scientific knowledgeas a quality control mechanism forscientists, publishers and the public.

scholarly journals Evaluating, Improving, and Appreciating Peer Review at IJTMB

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Ann Blair Kennedy, LMT, BCTMB, DrPH
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Improve Efficiency ◽  
Peer Reviewers

  Peer review is a mainstay of scientific publishing and, while peer reviewers and scientists report satisfaction with the process, peer review has not been without criticism. Within this editorial, the peer review process at the IJTMB is defined and explained. Further, seven steps are identified by the editors as a way to improve efficiency of the peer review and publication process. Those seven steps are: 1) Ask authors to submit possible reviewers; 2) Ask reviewers to update profiles; 3) Ask reviewers to “refer a friend”; 4) Thank reviewers regularly; 5) Ask published authors to review for the Journal; 6) Reduce the length of time to accept peer review invitation; and 7) Reduce requested time to complete peer review. We believe these small requests and changes can have a big effect on the quality of reviews and speed in which manuscripts are published. This manuscript will present instructions for completing peer review profiles. Finally, we more formally recognize and thank peer reviewers from 2018–2020.

scholarly journals Online Journals: the Path Towards Visibility and Quality

1970 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 175-184
Author(s):  
Julie Walker
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Online Journal ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Virtuous Cycle ◽  
Journal Visibility

Increasing the visibility of a journal is the key to increasing quality. The International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications works with journal editors in the global South to publish their journals online and to increase the efficiency of the peer review process. Editors are trained in using the Open Journals System software and in online journal management and strategy so they have the tools and knowledge needed to initiate a ‘virtuous cycle' in which visibility leads to an increase in the number and quality of submissions and in turn, increased citations and impact. In order to maximise this increase in quality, it must be supported by strong editorial office processes and management. This article describes some of the issues and strategies faced by the editors INASP works with, placing a particular emphasis on Nepal Journals Online. Key words: INASP; Open Journals System; Journals Online Projects; Nepal Journals Online; journal visibility; peer review DOI: 10.3126/dsaj.v3i0.2786 Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol.3 2009 175-184

scholarly journals How to choose and become a reviewer for a scientific medical journal

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 151
Author(s):  
Paola Gnerre ◽  
Giorgio Vescovo ◽  
Paola Granata ◽  
Cecilia Politi ◽  
Andrea Fontanella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Publication Delay ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Good Review

Peer review is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. The peer review of scientific manuscripts is a cornerstone of modern science and medicine. Some journals have difficulty in finding appropriate reviewers who are able to complete reviews on time avoiding publication delay. We discuss some of the main issues involved during the peer review process. The reviewer has a direct and important impact on the quality of a scientific medical Journal. Editors select reviewers on the basis of their expertise. Reviewers are more likely to accept to review a manuscript when it is relevant to their area of interest. They should respond to ethical principles, excluding any conflict of interest condition. The reviewer has to be professional, constructive, tactful, empathetic and respectful. Structured approaches, quality indicators and step-by-step process check list formats could be useful in obtaining a good review.

scholarly journals Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula CABEZAS Del FIERRO ◽  
Omar SABAJ MERUANE ◽  
Germán VARAS ESPINOZA ◽  
Valeria GONZÁLEZ HERRERA
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Average Length ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Review Time ◽  
Feedback Quality ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract The value of scientific knowledge is highly dependent on the quality of the process used to produce it, namely, the quality of the peer-review process. This process is a pivotal part of science as it works both to legitimize and improve the work of the scientific community. In this context, the present study investigated the relationship between review time, length, and feedback quality of review reports in the peer-review process of research articles. For this purpose, the review time of 313 referee reports from three Chilean international journals were recorded. Feedback quality was determined estimating the rate of direct requests by the total number of comments in each report. Number of words was used to describe the average length in the sample. Results showed that average time and length have little variation across review reports, irrespective of their quality. Low quality reports tended to take longer to reach the editor, so neither time nor length were related to feedback quality. This suggests that referees mostly describe, criticize, or praise the content of the article instead of making useful and direct comments to help authors improve their manuscripts.

scholarly journals Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective

2017 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 633-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janine Huisman ◽  
Jeroen Smits
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

scholarly journals A peer review process to assess the quality of graduate medical education

1988 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 288-93
Author(s):  
H Levine ◽  
E Vanek ◽  
G Lefferts ◽  
W Michener ◽  
G Weiker
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Graduate Medical Education ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Graduate Medical

scholarly journals A Note from the President-Elect

1992 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 3-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zvi Griliches
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
National Science Foundation ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Public Discussion ◽  
National Science ◽  
Economics Profession ◽  
President Elect ◽  
Conference Committee

A few months ago, Congress overruled the peer review process of the National Science Foundation. A congressional aide looked over the list of NSF grants, decided that 31 of them had titles unworthy of funding, and a conference committee voted on May 21 to cut off those grants. The cuts were made without hearings, without due process, and without public discussion. This note is to let the economics profession know what happened.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2131 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Peter The Great ◽  
Scientific Organizations ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

Abstract 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) An international scientific committee selected papers corresponding to the following criteria: a paper should have more than 8 pages and contain new scientific results, which are in the thematic area of the conference. Next, each selected paper underwent scientific peer review and technical check. The type of peer review was double-blind scientific peer review. At least 3 reviewers from different scientific organizations participated in the review of one paper. In case of disagreement between the reviewers, additional reviewers were involved. All papers are also checked for plagiarism, image quality and quality of the English language. • Conference submission management system: Open Journal System • Number of submissions received: 1240 • Number of submissions sent for review: 1157 • Number of submissions accepted: 493 Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 39.75 • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 reviewers per paper • Total number of reviewers involved: 132 • Any additional info on review process: Contact person for queries: Name: Vera Murgul Affiliation: Peter the Great St.Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia Email: [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration the 6th International Conference of Indonesia Forestry Researchers - Stream 1 Emerging Environmental Quality for Better Living (INAFOR 2021 Stream 1)

2021 ◽  
Vol 909 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Sustainable Forest Management ◽  
Chief Editor ◽  
Similarity Score ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Scientific Experts ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Conference Committee

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: Triple-blind review. The reviewers are anonymous and the authors’ identity is unknown to both reviewers and editors. Articles are anonymized at the submission stage and are handled in such a way to minimize any potential bias towards the author(s). • Conference submission management system: The system was using email correspondence among the conference committee, authors, appointed reviewers, and participants. • Number of submissions received: 23 papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 18 papers • Number of submissions accepted: 18 papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 78.26% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2.0 • Total number of reviewers involved: 5 persons • Any additional info on review process: The editors pre-selected manuscripts to send for reviewers based on the scope of the conference. All manuscripts had check similarities index, using Turnitin and accepted manuscripts did not exceed 10% similarity score. The manuscripts then checked by reviewers that have academic status and are scientific experts in their field. The reviewers used the following criteria: relevance to the scope, contribution to science, originality, systematic, and writing accuracy. The reviewers then recommend the papers: accept, accept with minor/major revision, or reject. The committee then sent the papers to authors to revise them accordingly. Revised version was evaluated by the editors and then the editor sent the revised manuscript to the reviewers again for re-evaluation. If required, the review process can be repeated. The decision to accept or reject the final papers was based on the suggestions of reviewers. • Contact person for queries: Name : Prof. Dr. Chairil Anwar Siregar (Chief Editor). Email: [email protected]. Affiliation: Center for Standardization of Sustainable Forest Management Instruments - Agency for Standardization of Environment and Forestry Instruments Ministry of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document