The Perils of Peer Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 78-98
Author(s):  
Alan Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
System Architecture ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Scientific Paper ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
Future Developments ◽  
Selection Of

This chapter explores the detailed stages of publication of a scientific paper, starting with selection of journal by authors and submission of papers. The system architecture and roles of editors, editorial boards, and referees are examined, and the nature of the review process is discussed, including potential pitfalls, ethical considerations, possible outcomes, and the interactions between authors and journals. The significance of rejection of papers (and famous cases of papers that were first rejected by journals) is explored, and the steps following acceptance of a paper, right through to proof correction and publication, explained. In addition, future developments being evaluated today, such as postpublication (or even preresearch) peer review, are discussed.

Peer review of nursing research proposals

1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
RD Lindquist ◽  
MF Tracy ◽  
D Treat-Jacobson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Nursing Research ◽  
Review Panel ◽  
Research Grants ◽  
Review Session ◽  
Grant Review ◽  
Selection Of

The grant review process that operationalizes peer review for the critique, scoring, approval, and selection of research grants for funding may intimidate a novice reviewer. This article describes the peer review panel and process of grant review, specifies the role and responsibilities of the reviewer in the review session, and presents considerations for the evaluation of proposals and the preparation of a written critique. A sample critique is provided.

Glycogen: an overview of possible regulatory roles of the proteins associated with the granuleThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue, entitled 14th International Biochemistry of Exercise Conference – Muscles as Molecular and Metabolic Machines, and has undergone the Journal’s usual peer review process.

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 488-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry E. Graham
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Muscle Glycogen ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Glycogen Granule ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Dynamic Regulation ◽  
Considerable Evidence ◽  
The Past ◽  
Selection Of

While scientists have routinely measured muscle glycogen in many metabolic situations for over 4 decades, there is surprisingly little known regarding its regulation. In the past decade, considerable evidence has illustrated that the carbohydrate stores in muscle are not homogeneous, and it is very likely that metabolic pools exist or that each granule has independent regulation. The fundamental aspects appear to be associated with a complex set of proteins that associate with both the granule and each other in a dynamic fashion. Some of the proteins are enzymes and others play scaffolding roles. A number of the proteins can translocate, depending on the metabolic stimulus. These various processes appear to be the mechanisms that give the glycogen granule precise yet dynamic regulation. This may also allow the stores to serve as an important metabolic regulator of other metabolic events.

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.

IMPROVING THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

2021 ◽  
pp. 82-83
Author(s):  
Oluwole Gbolagunte Ajao ◽  
Adekola Alao
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Administrative Positions ◽  
Selection Of

SUMMARY: The peer review process has been regarded as an essential part of accepting or rejecting a paper for publication since 1752 when the process was started by The Royal Society of London in the publication entitled “Philosophical Transactions”. In developing countries, one of the primary reasons for submitting pieces for publication is to support promotion in universities. In fact, the argument can be made that the only reason for publishing in developing countries is for faculty promotion. Despite the peer review process being standard practice for scientic journals, many of the research publications on COVID-19 were not subjected to the peer review system. In fact, numerous publications were pre-prints and papers shared by researchers online which were not peer reviewed, yet they were accepted and published by scientic journals in developing nations. When authors start to lose condence in the peer review process of a journal, they are not likely to submit their research work to such journals and this can lead to a diminished impact and reputation of such journals. Additionally, the selection of the assessors by the Editor-in -Chief is usually from the academic space of the editor and from the colleagues of the editor that usually share the editor's view. Contrary to what some editors in the developing countries believe, medical and academic administrative positions do not necessarily result in expertise in the peer review process. An editor can easily identify a poor assessment of an article, from the vitriolic feed-back of the author to the editor about an assessor when a paper is not recommended for publication. This paper provides evidence of and outlines the possible reasons that the peer review process is substandard in developing countries.

scholarly journals Analytical Chemistry and Innovative Applications

Analytica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 37-37
Author(s):  
Marcello Locatelli
Keyword(s):  
Applied Sciences ◽  
Analytical Chemistry ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Selection Of

In this issue of the Journal “Analytica”, there is a selection of accepted articles, after peer-review process, in which the great importance that Analytical Chemistry plays in the field of Applied Sciences and the vastness of the implications in the various sectors are highlighted [...]

In vitro chromatin self-association and its relevance to genome architectureThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue, entitled 27th International West Coast Chromatin and Chromosome Conference, and has undergone the Journal's usual peer review process.

2006 ◽  
Vol 84 (4) ◽  
pp. 411-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xu Lu ◽  
Joshua M. Klonoski ◽  
Michael G. Resch ◽  
Jeffrey C. Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
West Coast ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Eukaryotic Nucleus ◽  
Self Association ◽  
Selection Of

Chromatin in a eukaryotic nucleus is condensed through 3 hierarchies: primary, secondary, and tertiary chromatin structures. In vitro, when induced with cations, chromatin can self-associate and form large oligomers. This self-association process has been proposed to mimic processes involved in the assembly and maintenance of tertiary chromatin structures in vivo. In this article, we review 30 years of studies of chromatin self-association, with an emphasis on the evidence suggesting that this in vitro process is physiologically relevant.

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2105 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
Medium Quality ◽  
Relevant Field ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Submission Date

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-anonymous • Conference submission management system: https://indico.cern.ch • Number of submissions received: 28 • Number of submissions sent for review: 28 • Number of submissions accepted: 28 • Acceptance Rate 100% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 9 • Any additional info on review process: Authors submitted their papers within the official deadline, 10th of July 2021. Three members of the editorial boards, divided and distributed the submissions to the reviewers according to their relevant field of expertise. For papers with good quality and themes were directly accepted, while for those with medium quality, revisions were requested. No paper was found with poor quality, to be rejected. • Contact person for queries Dimos Sampsonidis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, [email protected] Please submit this form along with the rest of your files on the Submission Date. The information you provide will be published as part of the Work.

Scientific Paper Peer-Reviewing System With Blockchain, IPFS, and Smart Contract

2019 ◽  
pp. 189-221
Author(s):  
Shantanu Kumar Rahut ◽  
Razwan Ahmed Tanvir ◽  
Sharfi Rahman ◽  
Shamim Akhter
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Paper ◽  
Research Grants ◽  
Blockchain Technology ◽  
Smart Contract ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Relevant Field

In general, peer reviewing is known as an inspection of a work that is completed by one or more qualified people from the same profession and from the relevant field to make the work more error-free, readable, presentable, and adjustable according to the pre-published requirements and also considered as the primary metric for publishing a research paper, accepting research grants, or selecting award nominees. However, many recent publications are pointing to the biasness and mistreatment in the peer-review process. Thus, the scientific community is involved to generate ideas to advance the reviewing process including standardizing procedures and protocols, blind and electronic reviewing, rigorous methods in reviewer selection, rewarding reviewers, providing detailed feedback or checklist to reviewers, etc. In this chapter, the authors propose a decentralized and anonymous scientific peer-reviewing system using blockchain technology. This system will integrate all the above concern issues and eliminate the bias or trust issues interconnected with the peer-reviewing process.

scholarly journals Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (24) ◽  
pp. 13636-13649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles W. Fox ◽  
Meghan A. Duffy ◽  
Daphne J. Fairbairn ◽  
Jennifer A. Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Gender Diversity ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
And Gender

scholarly journals Improving Submissions to Scholarly Journals via Peer Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-9
Author(s):  
Elena Tikhonova ◽  
Lilia Raitskaya
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Academic Reputation ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Language And Education

Due to their commitment to better publishing standards and desire to improve their journals’ academic reputation, editorial boards, editors, and editorial teams seek to refine submissions they receive. Though, the peer review process serves as a filtering and assessment system, it is believed to greatly contribute to better quality of scholarly journals. Based on the analysis of the peer review internationally, the JLE editors focus on the peer review in the Journal of Language and Education, sharing their experience with the JLE potential authors. The editorial contains some reflections on the efficacy of peer review in the JLE. Potential authors may find some tips as to how to interact with recommendations and criticism on part of their peer reviewers and to make their voices heard.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document