scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration

2022 ◽  
Vol 1211 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
State University ◽  
Resource Saving ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Open Review ◽  
Practical Conference

XIX International Scientific and Practical Conference “ENERGY AND RESOURCE-SAVING - XXI century” (ERS 2021) The conference was held in the remote format on November 10-12, 2021 on the basis of FSBEI HEI “ORLOV STATE UNIVERSITY named after I.S. Turgenev”. • Type of peer review: one-way blind, double-blind, open review, transparent review,/other All articles submitted for the conference underwent two levels of one-sided blind peer review. The first level of one-way blind review was conducted by the section leaders in the following form: List of A form of one-way blind peer review of the first level, Logos are available in this pdf.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2140 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Information System ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
State University ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
System Information ◽  
Scientific Standards

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: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: Information System “Conference” • Number of submissions received: 84 • Number of submissions sent for review: 65 • Number of submissions accepted: 39 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 46,4% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 4 • Any additional info on review process: uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. • Contact person for queries: Name : Yurchenko Alexey Affiliation: Professor, National Research Tomsk State University, 36, Lenin Avenue Tomsk RUSSIA Email : [email protected] ([email protected])

Attitudes toward open peer review among stakeholders of a scholar-led journal in Brazil

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Ferreira Fontenelle ◽  
Thiago Dias Sarti
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Global North ◽  
Important Exception ◽  
Open Review

Abstract Scholarly journals should consider the attitudes of their communities before adopting any of the seven traits of open peer review. Unfortunately, surveys from the Global North might not apply to the Global South, where double-blind peer review is commonplace even among natural sciences and medicine journals. This paper reports the findings of a survey on attitudes toward open peer review among four stakeholder groups of a scholar-led medical journal in Brazil: society members, journal readers, authors, and reviewers. Compared to a previous survey, which mostly recruited natural sciences researchers from Europe, this survey found similar support for open peer review in general and for most of its traits. One important exception was open identities, which were considered detrimental by most participants, even more in this survey than in the previous one. Interestingly, participants were more dismissive of open identities as a whole than of statements about its specific consequences. Because preprints are increasingly popular but incompatible with double-blind review, future research should examine the effects of transitioning from double-blind to open identities, especially on gender bias. Meanwhile, scholarly journals with double-blind review might prefer to begin by adopting other traits of open review or to make open identities optional at first.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2056 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
State University ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Organizations ◽  
Virtual Conference ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

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) Single-blind • Conference submission management system: Morressier virtual conference and publishing platform • Number of submissions received: 76 • Number of submissions sent for review: 76 • Number of submissions accepted: 71 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 93.4 • Average number of reviews per paper: 1 • Total number of reviewers involved: 8 • Any additional info on review process: Typical review questionnaire like in leading scientific journals and detailed review about value and novelty of the publications reviewed. The Referees are from universities and scientific organizations from Russia, Byelorussia, China, Canada, India. • Contact person for queries: Name : Professor Victor Belyaev Affiliation: Moscow Region State University (MRSU) Email : [email protected]

scholarly journals Rejection rate and reasons for rejection after peer review: a case study of a Russian economics journal

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evgueniya A Balyakina ◽  
Ludmila A Kriventsova
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Rejection Rate ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Review Reports

 Background:  Peer review remains the only way of filtering and improving research. However, there are few studies of peer review based on the contents of review reports, because access to these reports is limited. Objectives: To measure the rejection rate and to investigate the reasons for rejection after peer-review in a specialized scientific journal.  Methods:  We considered the manuscripts submitted to a Russian journal, namely ‘Economy of Region’ (Rus Экономика региона), from 2016 to 2018, and analysed the double-blind review reports related to rejected submissions in qualitative and quantitative terms including descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 1653 submissions from 2016 to 2018, 324 (20%) were published, giving an average rejection rate of 80%. Content analysis of reviewer reports showed five categories of shortcomings in the manuscripts: breaches of publication ethics, mismatch with the journal’s research area, weak research reporting (a major group, which accounted for 66%of the total); lack of novelty, and design errors. We identified two major problems in the peer-review process that require editorial correction: in 36% of the cases, the authors did not send the revised version of the manuscript to the journal after receiving editorial comments and in 30% of the cases, the reviewers made contradictory recommendations. Conclusions: To obtain a more balanced evaluation from experts and to avoid paper losses the editorial team should revise the journal’s instructions to authors, its guide to reviewers, and the form of the reviewer’s report by indicating the weightings assigned to the different criteria and by describing in detail the criteria for a good paper.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 914 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Forest Management ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Sustainable Forest Management ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Full Paper ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Scientific Standards

Abstract 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: Double-blind review process • Conference submission management system: Submission through conference website for abstract and secretariat official email for full paper, [email protected] PIC: Aryani [email protected] PIC: Fathimah Handayani • Number of submissions received: 89 • Number of submissions sent for review: 88 • Number of submissions accepted: 78 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 87.6% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 35 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Name : Aryani/Fathimah Handayani Affiliation : Center for Standardization of Sustainable Forest Management Instruments, Bogor, Indonesia Email : [email protected]/[email protected]

Does double-blind peer review impact gender authorship trends? An evaluation of two leading neurosurgical journals from 2010 to 2019

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Uma V. Mahajan ◽  
Harsh Wadhwa ◽  
Parastou Fatemi ◽  
Samantha Xu ◽  
Judy Shan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Board Certification ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Female Authorship ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Single Versus ◽  
Status Of Women

OBJECTIVEPublications are key for advancement within academia. Although women are underrepresented in academic neurosurgery, the rates of women entering residency, achieving board certification, and publishing papers are increasing. The goal of this study was to assess the current status of women in academic neurosurgery publications. Specifically, this study sought to 1) survey female authorship rates in the Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS [not including JNS: Spine or JNS: Pediatrics]) and Neurosurgery from 2010 to 2019; 2) analyze whether double-blind peer review (started in Neurosurgery in 2011) altered female authorship rates relative to single-blind review (JNS); and 3) evaluate how female authorship rates compared with the number of women entering neurosurgery residency and obtaining neurosurgery board certification.METHODSGenders of the first and last authors for JNS and Neurosurgery articles from 2010 to 2019 were obtained. Data were also gathered on the number and percentage of women entering neurosurgery residency and women obtaining American Board of Neurological Surgeons (ABNS) certification between 2010 and 2019.RESULTSWomen accounted for 13.4% (n = 570) of first authors and 6.8% (n = 240) of last authors in JNS and Neurosurgery publications. No difference in rates of women publishing existed between the two journals (first authors: 13.0% JNS vs 13.9% Neurosurgery, p = 0.29; last authors: 7.3% JNS vs 6.0% Neurosurgery, p = 0.25). No difference existed between women first or last authors in Neurosurgery before and after initiation of double-blind review (p = 0.066). Significant concordance existed between the gender of first and last authors: in publications with a woman last author, the odds of the first author being a woman was increased by twofold (OR 2.14 [95% CI 1.43–3.13], p = 0.0001). Women represented a lower proportion of authors of invited papers (8.6% of first authors and 3.1% of last authors were women) compared with noninvited papers (14.1% of first authors and 7.4% of last authors were women) (first authors: OR 0.576 [95% CI 0.410–0.794], p = 0.0004; last authors: OR 0.407 [95% CI 0.198–0.751], p = 0.001). The proportion of women US last authors (7.4%) mirrors the percentage of board-certified women neurosurgeons (5.4% in 2010 and 6.8% in 2019), while the percentage of women US first authors (14.3%) is less than that for women entering neurosurgical residency (11.2% in 2009 and 23.6% in 2018).CONCLUSIONSThis is the first report of female authorship in the neurosurgical literature. The authors found that single- versus double-blind peer review did not impact female authorship rates at two top neurosurgical journals.

A different method of teaching peer review systems.

1998 ◽  
Vol 274 (6) ◽  
pp. S57 ◽  
Author(s):  
J T Lightfoot
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Knowledge Bases ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Open Review ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
A Current

Students often have difficulty grasping the advantages of the various peer review systems used in scientific publishing. In the described exercise, students are assigned a current study and then write three two-page critiques of the article. The three critiques occur at different times in the semester, and thus the students have differing knowledge bases. The critiques are then assigned to other students for peer review using the double-blind, single-blind, or open review systems. After the submission of each peer review, the class discusses the various advantages and disadvantages of each peer review system. In addition to experiencing peer review, in using this method students also gain an appreciation for the difficulty of judging the merit of a peer's work.

scholarly journals Peer review blinding practices of highly ranked dental journals: analysis and discussion

BDJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Lower Odds ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Single Blind

AbstractObjectives To evaluate the type of peer review blinding used in highly ranked dental journals and to discuss the influence of the blinding approaches on the peer review process.Methods All 91 dental journals classified by impact factor (IF) had their websites scrutinised for the type of peer review blinding used for submissions. If the information was not reported, the journals were contacted to obtain the information. Linear and logistic regression were applied to evaluate the association between type of peer review blinding and IF.Results The selected journals reported the following peer review blinding approaches: single-blind (N = 36, 39.6%), double-blind (N = 46, 50.5%), transparent (N = 2, 2.2%) and open (N = 1, 1.1%). Information from six (6.6%) journals was not available. A linear regression analysis demonstrated that journals with lower IFs were associated with double-blind review (p = 0.001). A logistic regression suggested lower odds of association between single-blind peer review and journals with IFs below a threshold of 2 (odds ratio 0.157, confidence interval 0.059 to 0.417, p <0.001).Conclusions The majority of highly ranked dental journals had single- and double-blind peer review; journals with higher IFs presented single-blind peer review and those with lower IFs reported double-blind peer review.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 1210 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Materials Science ◽  
Preliminary Review ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Overall Evaluation ◽  
Materials Science And Engineering ◽  
Conference Committee ◽  
Rational Language

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 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: Double-blind review First of all, the editor Iris will take a simple check to know whether the paper topics are included in the call-for-paper areas of this conference, if not, the submission will be rejected or seggested to other conferences. The included submissions will then be numbered and sent to the conference committee members(reviewers) for peer-review, the author names, emails and affiliations were removed constantly in this porocess. Each reviewer should fill in the reviewing form and 9 criterias in total are to be scored (5-point scale, with 1=lowest and 5=highest), including “Originality: Is the work relevant and novel”, “Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation”, “Repetition: Have significant parts of the manuscript already been published”, “Length: Is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length”, “Conclusion: Does the paper contain a carefully conclusion, summarizing what has been learned and why it is useful”, “Reference: Is the reference adequate and necessary”, “Structure: Is the manuscript structure(including the title, abstract and the content) rational”, “Language: Is the language accurate and readable”, “Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: Are they essential and clear”. Then the reviewer will give an overall evaluation or Detailed reviewing result(if any). In the end of the form, the final decision of Accept/Revision/Reject should be selected. No matter which selection the paper was marked, we send the whole reviewing form to the authors. When it is marked by Revision, we will have a double check of the revised papers before acceptation. • Conference submission management system: Yaseen Academy • Number of submissions received: 8 • Number of submissions sent for review: 7 • Number of submissions accepted: 4 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 50% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 12 • Any additional info on review process: A preliminary review was conducted by the main editor and only the approved papers were sent for peer-reviewed. • Contact person for queries: Iris Zhang (Yaseen Academy, Hongshan District, Wuhan, Hubei, China, [email protected])

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2096 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Program Committee ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Conference Theme ◽  
Relevant Field ◽  
Mail Address ◽  
E Mail

Abstract All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series has 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: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: 1. Sending materials to the organizers of the conference; 2. Verification of compliance with the subject of the conference; 3. Checking materials for plagiarism using two systems; 4. Submitting for double blind review; 5. Checking the quality of translation of the article into English; 6. Checking for the correct design of materials; 7. Submission of materials to the Publisher. • Number of submissions received: 558 • Number of submissions sent for review: 505 • Number of submissions accepted: 252 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 50% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 118 • Any additional info on review process: To be accepted for publication, the material must have the following requirements: compliance with the conference theme; positive expertise of reviewers; good level of English and well-formed material. The article should have: - the relevance (subject matter of the article should be interest to the scientific community in terms of the current development of science and technology); - the scientific character (the article should deal with considered the scientific aspects of the problem, even if the task itself has a practical bias); - the originality (results that presented in the article should have a scientific novelty, survey articles to be approved by the special decision of The International Program Committee). The article must be clearly structured to be generally accepted in scientific publications sections, namely: - introduction; - relevance, scientific significance of the question with a brief review of the literature; -setting of the problem; - the theoretical part; - practical significance, suggestions and case studies, the results of experiments; - conclusions. The results that presented in this paper must be justified by particular scientific tools: experimental mathematical conclusion, mathematical modeling, etc., in order to be considered them as sufficiently reliable. We do not accept materials containing only a hypothesis or untested proposals. The presented results should be formulated in the form of scientific statements, which clearly define a contribution to science. The article should be written in an understandable language for an expert in the relevant field. Generally accepted technical terms should be used. The manuscripts should contain the following information: - paper title; - author(s) data (name, title, affiliation, full mail address, phone and fax numbers, e-mail address); - abstract; - keywords; - references. Contact person for queries: D B Solovev ([email protected])

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document