The Journal Review Process

2021 ◽  
pp. 333-394
Author(s):  
Seth J. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Manuscript Submission ◽  
Journal Review ◽  
Editorial Review ◽  
Editorial Decisions ◽  
Journal Submission

This chapter reviews the journal submission and review process, starting with navigating manuscript submission sites and proceeding through editorial review, peer review, editorial decisions, revising and resubmitting manuscripts, developing reviewer response letters, finalizing manuscripts, and correcting publisher proofs. The chapter provides an in-depth tutorial on responding to reviewer requests, prioritizing which requests to respond to first, how to respond to different editorial styles, and how to use the response letter to “push back” against reviewer requests without being combative. The chapter also offers suggestions for handling conflicting reviewer requests, requests for new analyses, and how to revise a paper when new analyses change the message or take away previously significant findings.

scholarly journals No evidence of any systematic bias against manuscripts by women in the peer review process of 145 scholarly journals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Flaminio Squazzoni ◽  
Giangiacomo Bravo ◽  
Pierpaolo Dondio ◽  
Mike Farjam ◽  
Ana Marusic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Gender Diversity ◽  
Systematic Bias ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Female Authors ◽  
Social Nature ◽  
Editorial Decisions ◽  
Selection Of

This article examines gender bias in peer review with complete data on 145 journals in various fields of research, including about 1.7 million authors and 740,000 referees. We reconstructed three possible sources of bias, i.e., the editorial selection of referees, referee recommendations, and editorial decisions, and examined all their possible relationships. In line with previous research, we found that editors were sensitive to gender homophily in that they tended to match authors and referee by gender systematically. Results showed that in general manuscripts written by women as solo authors or co-authored by women are treated even more favorably by referees and editors. This is especially so in biomedicine and health journals, whereas women were treated relatively less favorably in social science & humanities journals, i.e., the field in which the ratio of female authors was the highest in our sample. Although with some caveat, our findings suggest that peer review and editorial processes in scholarly journals do not penalize manuscripts by women. However, considering the complex social nature of gender prejudices, journals should increase gender diversity among reviewers and editors as a means of correcting signals potentially biasing the perceptions of authors and referees.

Peer Review and Scholarly Originality

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle Siler ◽  
David Strang
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Theoretical Argument ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Journal Submission ◽  
Administrative Science

We examine the criticisms and subsequent changes that arise in the course of peer review. Fifty-two scholars who had recently published in Administrative Science Quarterly were surveyed regarding their peer review experience and how their article changed from initial journal submission to eventual publication. Papers that challenged theoretical perspectives faced distinctively high levels of criticism and change, particularly with attention to methodology, while those that offered a new perspective or that extended or combined established perspectives were less criticized and changed. The number of challenge-oriented publications was small as well, suggesting that either few such submissions survive the review process or few are submitted in the first place. Overall, peer review appears open to expansion of the variety of theoretical argument but does little to aid in the winnowing out of established perspectives.

Successful authors’ views on the editorial review processes of accounting journals

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 411-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph W. Adler ◽  
Gregory Liyanarachchi
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Past ◽  
Public Scrutiny ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Editorial Review ◽  
Editorial Decisions ◽  
Past Experiences ◽  
Geographical Locations

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report successful authors’ views about the editorial review processes of a set of 42 accounting journals. The two main objectives are: to enlighten editors and journal publishers in their quest to improve their journals’ editorial review processes and to inform prospective authors about the past experiences successful authors have had with the 42 accounting journals. Design/methodology/approach – A Webmail survey was used to collect data about authors’ experiences with publishing in one of the 42 accounting journals. A total of 856 responses (40 per cent response rate) was received. Various statistical analyses were used to explore a range of editorial review process features, including the timeliness of editorial feedback, timeliness of publishing accepted manuscripts, quality of the feedback provided and performance of the editor. Findings – Authors were found to be generally quite satisfied with the editorial review processes of the journals in which they published. There were, however, notable leaders and laggards observed among the 42 journal titles. The survey findings also revealed that many journals use the practice of basing their editorial decisions on the comments of a single reviewer. In fact, this practice is most prevalent among the journals that are commonly perceived as the field’s “top” journals. These and other editorial review results – for example, comparisons between journal-tiers, geographical locations of editorial review offices and journal specialties – are discussed. Originality/value – This paper extends and moves well beyond Adler and Liyanarachchi (2011), by exploring such additional author perceptions of the editorial review process as the performance of journal editors, the use of multiple reviewers and reviewers’ reporting of the typical faults/weaknesses in the papers they read. Exposing to public scrutiny an academic discipline’s editorial review processes is quite common in some fields of research, most notably medicine. Doing so in the accounting discipline addresses a need that many of the respondents felt was highly necessary and long overdue. While authors will benefit from the paper’s insights, editors and publishers are expected to as well.

The Peer Review of “Outcome of Depression in Psychiatric Settings”

1994 ◽  
Vol 164 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-308
Author(s):  
Alan Lee ◽  
Gordon Parker
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Decisions ◽  
Shed Light

To facilitate the introduction of this new section, designed to shed light on the peer review process, the Editor has used the review of a paper of which he is a co-author. The referees for this paper were originally anonymous, but they both agreed to be named for the purposes of this article. The original article was twice the length of the published version. The effect of the assessment should be readily apparent. Editorial decisions were undertaken by members of the Editorial Board other than the current Editor.

Pitfalls and successes of peer review in neurosurgery

1997 ◽  
Vol 87 (6) ◽  
pp. 972-978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward R. Laws ◽  
T. Glenn Pait ◽  
John A. Jane
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Scientific Technical ◽  
Editorial Decisions ◽  
Fine Print

✓ As the first editor of the Journal of Neurosurgery, Louise Eisenhardt, acting with the advice of the editorial board, was responsible for making decisions on the acceptance or rejection of submitted manuscripts. Her log, covering the first 14 years of editorial decisions, is a record of neurosurgical progress and of the forces—scientific, technical and other—that shaped the field of neurosurgery. Any peer-review process is subject to pitfalls that become evident in retrospect, but an effective peer-review process is one of the basic ingredients of scientific progress. The decisions to accept or reject manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Neurosurgery during Eisenhardt's tenure are highlighted in this historical vignette.

scholarly journals Abuse of peer review process by sham authors

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Senthil Kumar ◽  
Shahryar Sorooshian
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Journal Review ◽  
Learning Institutions

This is a short letter on how the peer review process of many journals is being abused by some sham authors. While it would be difficult for the journals to identify and eliminate manuscripts that are not submitted with a sincere intention to publish, the universities and learning institutions should develop code of ethics to prevent their staff from abusing the journal review process. Imposing submission fee would also act as a deterrent against unscrupulous submissions.

scholarly journals The Influence of bioRχiv on PLOS ONE’s Peer-Review and Acceptance Time

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Tsunoda ◽  
Yuan Sun ◽  
Masaki Nishizawa ◽  
Xiaomin Liu ◽  
Kou Amano
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Knowledge Dissemination ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Journal Publishing ◽  
Journal Submission ◽  
Submission Date

AbstractThis study examines the relation between acceptance times in preprint publishing and journal publishing. Specifically, we investigated the association between a paper’s posting time to bioRχiv, a preprints server, and journal articles’ peer-review and acceptance time for PLOS ONE. So far, of the total papers published in 1,626 academic journals, the average publication rate of those posted in bioRχiv is 40.67%. Meanwhile, PLOS ONE was the journal that published more papers. Analysis of peer-review and acceptance time of papers published in journals via preprints showed the time these papers are posted in relation to these intervals. The median of the peer-review and acceptance time of the journal submission date that was later than the date of first posting to bioRχiv was 110.00 days, and in the reverse case, it was 139.50 days. Posting to the preprint server before journal submission shows a better order than vice versa. This study provides us a good understanding of the peer-review process. It also gives us good insights into optimizing this process, which would then facilitate paper publication and knowledge dissemination.

scholarly journals 20 YEARS OF ANNALS OF KEMU (1995 � 2015)

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 210
Author(s):  
Prof Dr. Syed Muhammad Awais
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Editorial Policy ◽  
Manuscript Submission ◽  
Total Income ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Publication Cost ◽  
Editorial Review ◽  
The Cost

The Annals of KEMU was first published in 1995, and Prof. Abdul Majeed Ch. was the first editor. I was appointed as editor on 15th May 2007, the responsibility which I will be completing on my retirement on 9th December, 2015. A brief report of Annals of KEMU from 15-05-2007 to 09-12-2015 is stated below for kind information of the authors, reviewers and readers of the Annals. The title of Annals of KEMC was changed to Annals of KEMU, new editorial board was constituted and editorial policy was made and approved on 14th June 2007. According to editorial policy 2007, the editorial process was divided into six (6) steps; 1-Manuscript Submission, 2-Plagiarism Check with Turnitun, 3-review of manuscript by two reviewers, 4-acceptance/rewriting/rejection, 5-publication and 6-circulation. As a result of high quality, the Annals was recognized by PMDC in 2009. The HEC recognized Annals first in category Z and later on raised the category to Y and in July 2015 to highest category X. Annals of KEMU has been indexed with; 1-Pak MediNet (1996), 2-EMRO Indexus of WHO (1997), 3-Directory of Open Access Journals-DOAJ (2007), 4-ICJME Database(2010), 5-PKP Harvester Database, 6-Open J Gate Database (2010), 7-Google Scholar. From June 2007 to November 2015, thirty five (35) issues of Annals of KEMU were published. Five hundred and sixty (560) manuscript were received, four hundred and thirty eight (38) manuscripts were accepted and published, forty three (43) were rejected, and four (04) manuscripts were withdrawn by authors. Until December 2015, seventy five (75) manuscripts are in editorial review process. Total income of the Annals from June 2007 to December 2015 was Rs. 12,52,280/- (Grant from HEC Rs. 6,12,280, collection from authors at rate of Rs. 1,000 for processing each manuscript Rs. 5,60,000 and from advertisements Rs. 80,000. During this period the expenditures of Annals have been Rs. 12,80,215 (publication cost Rs. 11,36,215 and correspondence and circulation Rs 1,44,000). In this way the cost to KEMU treasury has been Rs. 27,935/-. The credit for the achievements of; maintaining good quality (plagiarism below 19% and approval by two reviewers of same specialty), achieving PMDC recognition and highest HEC rank, having Annals indexed with 7 databases and just cost of Rs. 27, 935 to KEMU treasury for publishing of 35 Issues goes to our able editorial board, authors, reviewers and the staff. I take this opportunity to thank all of them, espe-cially the editorial secretaries, Mr. Asim Saeed and Mr. Muhammad Afzal (Assistant Annals of KEMU), who have worked very hard.

scholarly journals Seasonal Entropy, Diversity and Inequality Measures of Submitted and Accepted Papers Distributions in Peer-Reviewed Journals

Entropy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel Ausloos ◽  
Olgica Nedic ◽  
Aleksandar Dekanski
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Theil Index ◽  
Linear Transformations ◽  
Inequality Measures ◽  
Entropy Measures ◽  
Editorial Decisions

This paper presents a novel method for finding features in the analysis of variable distributions stemming from time series. We apply the methodology to the case of submitted and accepted papers in peer-reviewed journals. We provide a comparative study of editorial decisions for papers submitted to two peer-reviewed journals: the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society (JSCS) and this MDPI Entropy journal. We cover three recent years for which the fate of submitted papers—about 600 papers to JSCS and 2500 to Entropy—is completely determined. Instead of comparing the number distributions of these papers as a function of time with respect to a uniform distribution, we analyze the relevant probabilities, from which we derive the information entropy. It is argued that such probabilities are indeed more relevant for authors than the actual number of submissions. We tie this entropy analysis to the so called diversity of the variable distributions. Furthermore, we emphasize the correspondence between the entropy and the diversity with inequality measures, like the Herfindahl-Hirschman index and the Theil index, itself being in the class of entropy measures; the Gini coefficient which also measures the diversity in ranking is calculated for further discussion. In this sample, the seasonal aspects of the peer review process are outlined. It is found that the use of such indices, non linear transformations of the data distributions, allow us to distinguish features and evolutions of the peer review process as a function of time as well as comparing the non-uniformity of distributions. Furthermore, t- and z-statistical tests are applied in order to measure the significance (p-level) of the findings, that is, whether papers are more likely to be accepted if they are submitted during a few specific months or during a particular “season”; the predictability strength depends on the journal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document