scholarly journals How to Publish: Guidance From GSA’s Journal Editors

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 199-199
Author(s):  
Suzanne Meeks

Abstract Each year he GSA publications team sponsors a symposium to assist authors who wish to publish in GSA’s high impact and influential journals. The first part of the session will include five brief presentations from the editors of The Gerontologist, Innovation and Aging, and the Journals of Gerontology Series A and B plus GSA’s managing editors. We will integrate practical tips with principles of publication ethics and scholarly integrity. The topics will be as follows: (1) Preparing your manuscript: strong and ethical scholarly writing for multidisciplinary audiences, (2) common problems that affect peer review, (3) addressing translational significance and fit to journal expectations, (4) transparency, documentation, and Open Science; and (5) working with Scholar One. Following these presentations, we will hold round table discussions with editors from the GSA journals portfolio. At these round tables, editors will answer questions related to the podium presentations and other questions specific to each journal. Intended audiences include emerging and international scholars, and authors interested in learning more about best practices and tips for getting their scholarly work published.

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 858-858
Author(s):  
Suzanne Meeks

Abstract The GSA publications team sponsors this annual symposium to assist prospective authors to successfully publish their gerontological scholarship in GSA’s high impact and influential journals. The first part of the session will include five brief presentations from the Editors-in-chief of Journals of Gerontology-Series B, Social and Psychological Sciences, The Gerontologist, and Innovation in Aging, plus one of GSA’s managing editors. We will integrate practical tips with principles of publication ethics and scholarly integrity. The topics will be as follows: (1) preparing your manuscript, including how to choose the right journal; (2) strong and ethical scholarly writing for multidisciplinary audiences; (3) transparency, documentation, and Open Science; (4) successfully responding to reviews; and (5) working with Scholar One. Following these presentations, we will hold round table discussions with editors from the GSA journals portfolio. At these roundtables, editors will answer questions related to the podium presentations and other questions specific to each journal. Intended audiences include emerging and international scholars, and authors interested in learning more about best practices and tips for getting their scholarly work published.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel George Hamilton ◽  
Hannah Fraser ◽  
Rink Hoekstra ◽  
Fiona Fidler

Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 journal editors of high-impact journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. Editors were asked for details about peer review policies and practices at their journals, as well as their views on five publication ethics issues. Key findings included: almost half of surveyed journals checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, adoption of “open” policies was uncommon and a fifth of editors reported that disagreement with a reviewer’s recommendation would be grounds for editing a report (with or without the reviewer’s permission). The majority of editors expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to raw data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their journals and replication studies. These results highlight differences in peer review policies across journals and provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role of peer review in scholarly publishing, and transparency in editorial and publishing policy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 858-858
Author(s):  
Suzanne Meeks

Abstract This presentation will emphasize the importance of plain, good writing. Editors of high impact journals read 10 or more manuscripts per week, and are under pressure to reject 80-90% of them. Regardless of scholarly quality, if the point and contribution are not clear in a quick scan of the paper, it likely will not be reviewed favorably. I will provide tips for strong scientific writing that are commonly violated in manuscript submissions, and provide references for additional writing support. I will also discuss some common publication ethics issues that arise during the review process, including author contributions and embedding your scholarship in the context of prior work.


2021 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley N Cooper ◽  
Jessica E Dwyer

A transparent corrections process is essential to assist in the maintenance of public confidence in scientific and medical research. In the era of preprints, fast-paced peer review, and early-access publication, errors and oversights from both authors and editors might be more common. The swift and open correction of the public record requires the participation of authors, journal editors, and publishers, and in this Viewpoint we share The Lancet group’s best practices around errors and corrections.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Michael Kavanagh ◽  
Rohan Kapitány

Adopting newly proposed ‘open science’ reforms to improve transparency and increase rigor is hard and can make us, as researchers, feel vulnerable. Nonetheless, these reforms are vital to improving the overall quality and confidence of our collective research. We have, through our own experiences, found that preregistration and detailed analysis plans can help to identify, and potentially avoid, errors. Prepublication has similarly helped us to collaborate and receive feedback on manuscripts, particularly during prolonged periods of peer-review. The Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) field is constituted by a diversity of scholars and disciplines, and thus faces somewhat unique challenges in its efforts to establish common practices, standards, and research terminology. In this paper we offer an introduction to the open science reforms of preregistration and prepublication specifically orientated towards the CSR field. We discuss common concerns around these practices, highlighting areas of misunderstanding while conceding and discussing genuine limitations. We conclude with voluntary, low-investment recommendations for best-practices with regards preregistration and preprints for the field of the Cognitive Science of Religion.


2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia R. King

Abstract For decades there have been several common ethical issues in writing and publishing that have plagued nurse authors and editors. These have included authorship, duplicate or redundant publication, conflicts of interest (including financial), misconduct, and peer review. These topics have been discussed independently and together, but it has not been until recently that appropriate guidelines or best practices have emerged. Nursing and other scientific journals have struggled with these issues continuously and now organizations (e.g., International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and Office of Integrity) have developed guidelines and best practices to help authors and editors.


F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 969 ◽  
Author(s):  
Birgit Schmidt ◽  
Tony Ross-Hellauer ◽  
Xenia van Edig ◽  
Elizabeth C Moylan

Open peer review (OPR), as with other elements of open science and open research, is on the rise. It aims to bring greater transparency and participation to formal and informal peer review processes. But what is meant by `open peer review', and what advantages and disadvantages does it have over standard forms of review? How do authors or reviewers approach OPR? And what pitfalls and opportunities should you look out for? Here, we propose ten considerations for OPR, drawing on discussions with authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and librarians, and provide a pragmatic, hands-on introduction to these issues. We cover basic principles and summarise best practices, indicating how to use OPR to achieve best value and mutual benefits for all stakeholders and the wider research community.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
João Paço

O Hospital CUF é fundado em 1945, o ano da Paz, consequência das políticas sociais de Alfredo da Silva e da necessidade da criação de um hospital em Lisboa, que completasse a assistência desenvolvida pela CUF na margem sul ao nível das fábricas. Foi um hospital que desde o início foi criado para que à sua dimensão juntasse um conjunto de excelentes clínicos que ali exerciam a sua medicina privada, para além de deter um serviço de urgência cuja entrada para o quadro era altamente seletiva. Clínica das inovações, assim foi denominada na época, pois de facto para além de um corpo clínico de excelência sempre esteve dotada de sofisticado e inovador equipamento. Evoluiu ao longo dos tempos e ali foi criado e se desenvolveu um conceito de qualidade no atendimento, transformando o nome CUF em sinal de eficiência e excelência clínica em Portugal. Com o passar dos anos e a criação da José de Mello Saúde (JMS), outras Unidades de Saúde foram aparecendo. Atualmente a rede CUF dispõe de 14 unidades hospitalares privadas e duas unidades em regime de Parceria Público-Privada. Bem cedo os médicos do Hospital CUF resolveram em complemento da sua atividade clínica editar uma revista - a “Gazeta Médica” - que na altura juntava entre o Conselho Editorial e o Conselho Científico alguns dos mais renomados clínicos da época. Esta revista extingue-se em 1964, renascendo agora com o mesmo nome e com uma vitalidade redobrada, fruto das modificações a que assistimos a nível da saúde em Portugal. A nossa motivação é procurar a aprovação dos pares e o reconhecimento internacional. Como a publicação científica é uma atividade central e crucial no exercício da Medicina e um indicador de competência, a Academia CUF decidiu retomar a publicação da revista Gazeta Médica que foi fundada em 1948, e os seus artigos foram indexados na maior base de dados bibliográfica internacional na área da biomedicina, a Medline, de 1948 a 1964, data em que a revista foi descontinuada. A Gazeta Médica é uma revista científica, revista por pares (single-blinded peer review), de publicação trimestral, cuja missão é promover a excelência em medicina, publicando artigos de rigorcientífico e metodológico, atualidade dos temas e procurando sempre que a informação seja da maior utilidade na prática clínica. Para realizar esta missão, a revista aceita para publicação artigos de investigação fundamental, epidemiológica, clínica, bem como artigos de revisão, orientações práticas, relatos de casos clínicos, artigos de opinião (perspetivas) e comentários relevantes para a prática clínica, prestação de cuidados de saúde, política de saúde, educação médica, ética e metodologia de pesquisa. Além disso, a revista publica narrativas pessoais que transmitem a arte damedicina. A Gazeta Médica não considera material que já foi publicado (exceto resumos apresentados em conferências) ou que se encontra a aguardar publicação noutras revistas. A Gazeta Médica adota a definição de liberdade editorial do International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) e rege-se de acordo com as normas de edição biomédicas elaboradas pelo ICMJE e do Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). A política editorial da revista incorpora no processo de revisão e publicação as Recomendações de Política Editorial (Editorial Policy Statements) emitidas pelo Council of Science Editors, que cobre responsabilidades e direitos dos editores das revistas com arbitragem científica. A Gazeta Médica dispõe de uma Equipa Editorial dinâmica e motivada para promover a qualidade editorial e científica da revista. Como conclusão, queremos que a Gazeta Médica seja uma revista de prestígio com obrigatoriedade de seguir vários padrões de qualidade para atingir o nível de excelência internacional.


Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Eirini Delikoura ◽  
Dimitrios Kouis

Recently significant initiatives have been launched for the dissemination of Open Access as part of the Open Science movement. Nevertheless, two other major pillars of Open Science such as Open Research Data (ORD) and Open Peer Review (OPR) are still in an early stage of development among the communities of researchers and stakeholders. The present study sought to unveil the perceptions of a medical and health sciences community about these issues. Through the investigation of researchers` attitudes, valuable conclusions can be drawn, especially in the field of medicine and health sciences, where an explosive growth of scientific publishing exists. A quantitative survey was conducted based on a structured questionnaire, with 179 valid responses. The participants in the survey agreed with the Open Peer Review principles. However, they ignored basic terms like FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and appeared incentivized to permit the exploitation of their data. Regarding Open Peer Review (OPR), participants expressed their agreement, implying their support for a trustworthy evaluation system. Conclusively, researchers need to receive proper training for both Open Research Data principles and Open Peer Review processes which combined with a reformed evaluation system will enable them to take full advantage of the opportunities that arise from the new scholarly publishing and communication landscape.


2021 ◽  
pp. 074193252110172
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Maggin

Interest in transparent and open science is increasing in special education, school psychology, and related disciplines. Proponents for open science reforms provide evidence that researchers in special education, and the broader social sciences, engage in practices that mitigates its credibility and reduces the validity of information disseminated to practitioners and policymakers. In light of these issues, this article reports on a survey of journal editors-in-chief and associate editors to gain insight into concerns regarding research reproducibility, and the familiarity and viability of open science for improving research credibility. Results indicate that respondents were concerned about research reproducibility, were moderately familiar with open science practices, and viewed many as effective for improving research credibility. Finally, respondents supported the use of journals to encourage open science practices though there was little support for requiring their use. Findings are discussed in relation to open science and implications for research and practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document