scholarly journals Preparing Your Manuscript: Strong and Ethical Scholarly Writing for Multidisciplinary Audiences

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 199-199
Author(s):  
Suzanne Meeks
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Prior Work ◽  
Scholarly Writing ◽  
Good Writing

Abstract This presentation will emphasize the importance of plain, good writing. Editors read 10 or more manuscripts per week with pressure to reject 80-90% of them. If the point and contribution are not clear in a quick scan of the paper, it will not be reviewed favorably. I will provide tips for writing that are commonly violated in submissions, provide references for additional writing support, cover expectations for language consistent with GSA’s Reframing Aging initiative, and 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.

scholarly journals Strong and Ethical Scholarly Writing for Multidisciplinary Audiences

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 858-858
Author(s):  
Suzanne Meeks
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Prior Work ◽  
Scholarly Writing ◽  
Good Writing

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.

scholarly journals How To Publish: Preparing Manuscripts for Clarity, Transparency, Scholarly Integrity, and Success

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 858-858
Author(s):  
Suzanne Meeks
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Round Table ◽  
Open Science ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Scholarly Writing ◽  
Annual Symposium ◽  
The Right

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.

scholarly journals From the Desk of Editor

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Arun Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Turnaround Time ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Late Response ◽  
Medical Sciences

Dear All Associated Users of AJMS: It gives us immense pleasure to publish the current issue of AJMS Vol 12 No 1 (2021). We started our journey from 2010 with an online edition of AJMS. Slowly we progressed with the support of our committed and strong team of Editorial board members and launched the printed edition in the year 2015 and we further expanded our publication frequency from quarterly issue to bimonthly issue. With the overwhelming response and support from our users, we now take a leap to publish monthly issue from this year (2021) onwards.  With the current expansion of edition, we make it clear that we have not made any compromise in the quality of articles which we publish in AJMS. We have been striving hard to serve the potential authors who has entrusted on us and chosen our journal to publish their manuscripts, making our journal as their journal of choice! On submission, the manuscripts are assigned to editor and section editor for initial review process, followed by assigning the manuscript to three reviewers of which two are internal reviewers and one outside the editorial board (external reviewer). The blind review process in our journal takes six to eight weeks’, sometimes even earlier depending on the reviewers and the decision is made once the review report is submitted to the editor. Sometimes the delay in turnaround time happens which is unavoidable due to late response from reviewers and from the authors. We insist the authors to communicate with the editor soon the review reports are sent to them for revisions. This would further shrink the time of publication from submission. The reviewers and the editorial board members are solely responsible for taking initial decision of the article but the final decision is based on the Editor. The best part of our journal is we respond to each and every author promptly and do not ignore any queries.  The details of the journal can be viewed by clicking the links of particular sections- Focus and Scope, Peer Review Process, Open Access Policy, Publication Frequency, Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of Asian Journal of Medical Sciences, Duties of Reviewers, Duties of Authors, Indexing of Asian Journal of Medical Sciences can be viewed by this link-https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/AJMS/about Submission Preparation Checklist, Author Guidelines, Plagiarism Policy can be viewed by following this link-https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/AJMS/about/submissions Authors are advised to go through the guidelines and then submit their manuscripts We look forward to further enhance the quality of article in AJMS and we will strive hard to ensure this journal goes global, in the future. Thank you all for your support and entrusting on us. Prof. Dr. Arun Kumar Editor-in-Chief, Asian Journal of Medical Sciences

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 199-199
Author(s):  
Suzanne Meeks
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Round Table ◽  
Open Science ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Scholarly Writing ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Common Problems

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.

scholarly journals A Critical Appraisal of Predatory Journals in Pathology

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaman M AlAhmad ◽  
Ibrahim Abdelhafez ◽  
Farhan S Cyprian ◽  
Faruk Skenderi ◽  
Saghir Akhtar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Open Access Journals

Predatory or pseudo journals have recently come into focus due to their massive internet expansion and extensive spam email soliciting. Recent studies explored this urging problem in several biomedical disciplines. In the present study, we identified 69 potential predatory (pseudo) pathology journals that were contrasted to 89 legitimate pathology journals obtained from the major bibliographic databases. All potential predatory journals in pathology shared at least one of the features proposed by previous studies (e.g. a poor web-site integrity, submissions via email, unclear or ambiguous peer-review process, missing names of the editorial board members, missing or pending the journal ISSN). Twenty-one (30%) of the potential predatory pathology journals had misleading titles mimicking those of legitimate journals. Only one of the identified journals was listed in the Directory of Open Access journals whereas none (0%) was indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE or Web of Science, listed in the Committee on Publication Ethics nor have they had a legitimate impact factor in the Journal Citation Reports.

Subjective influences in the grant review process

1986 ◽  
Vol 50 (12) ◽  
pp. 726-727
Author(s):  
RS Mackenzie ◽  
RE Martin
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Grant Review

Clinical Science in the 1990s

1990 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
M. J. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Molecular Level ◽  
Short Interval ◽  
Clinical Science ◽  
Molecular Medicine ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Real Progress ◽  
General Journal

From this issue, Clinical Science will increase its page numbers from an average of 112 to 128 per monthly issue. This welcome change — equivalent to at least two manuscripts — has been ‘forced’ on us by the increasing pressure on space; this has led to an undesirable increase in the delay between acceptance and publication, and to a fall in the proportion of submitted manuscripts we have been able to accept. The change in page numbers will instead permit us now to return to our exceptionally short interval between acceptance and publication of 3–4 months; and at the same time we shall be able not only to accept (as now) those papers requiring little or no revision, but also to offer hope to some of those papers which have raised our interest but come to grief in review because of a major but remediable problem. Our view, doubtless unoriginal, has been that the review process, which is unusually thorough for Clinical Science, involving a specialist editor and two external referees, is most constructive when it helps the evolution of a good paper from an interesting piece of research. Traditionally, the papers in Clinical Science have represented some areas of research more than others. However, this has reflected entirely the pattern of papers submitted to us, rather than any selective interest of the Editorial Board, which numbers up to 35 scientists covering most areas of medical research. Arguably, after the explosion during the last decade of specialist journals, the general journal can look forward to a renaissance in the 1990s, as scientists in apparently different specialities discover that they are interested in the same substances, asking similar questions and developing techniques of mutual benefit to answer these questions. This situation arises from the trend, even among clinical scientists, to recognize the power of research based at the cellular and molecular level to achieve real progress, and at this level the concept of organ-based specialism breaks down. It is perhaps ironic that this journal, for a short while at the end of the 1970s, adopted — and then discarded — the name of Clinical Science and Molecular Medicine, since this title perfectly represents the direction in which clinical science, and therefore Clinical Science, is now progressing.

Success Strategies: Implementing the Professional Performance Review Process for School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists

2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-9
Author(s):  
Jill Parmenter ◽  
Sheryl Amaral ◽  
Julia Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Self Advocacy ◽  
Professional Performance ◽  
Performance Review ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities ◽  
Speech Language Pathologist ◽  
School Based ◽  
Review Management

Abstract The Professional Performance Review Process for School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists (PPRP) (ASHA, 2006) was developed in response to the need for a performance review tool that fits school district requirements for performance review management while addressing the specific roles and responsibilities of a school-based speech-language pathologist (ASHA, 2006). This article will examine the purpose and components of the PPRP. A description of its use as a tool for self-advocacy will be discussed. Strategies for successful implementation of the PPRP will be explained using insight from speech-language pathologists and other professionals familiar with the PPRP.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document