Publish or perish: An evaluation of the quality, quantity, ethics and review process of IEEE/PES: Advanced technology for assisting the review process

Author(s):  
Thomas L. Baldwin
Publications ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Emilija Stojmenova Duh ◽  
Andrej Duh ◽  
Uroš Droftina ◽  
Tim Kos ◽  
Urban Duh ◽  
...  

Scholarly communication is today immersed in publish-or-perish culture that propels non-cooperative behavior in the sense of strategic games played by researchers. Here we introduce and describe a blockchain based platform for decentralized scholarly communication. The design of the platform rests on community driven publishing reviewing processes and implements cryptoeconomic incentives that promote cooperative user behavior. The key to achieve cooperation in blockchain based scholarly communication is to transform today’s static research paper into a modifiable research paper under continuous peer review process. We introduce and discuss the implementation of a modifiable research paper as a smart contract on the blockchain.


2017 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nagarajappa Sandesh ◽  
Shilpa Wahrekar

Background and aim. With the increasing demand to publish due to ‘publish or perish’ culture among research and academic institutions, the choice of a journal for publishing scientific articles becomes very important. A publication with many citations and high impact factor can propel researchers in their academic careers. The aim of this study is to explore the perceptions of medical and dental researchers in India about the important criteria to consider while selecting scientific journals for publishing their research.Methods. 206 faculty staff members from three medical and five dental institutions were selected through convenience sampling. The study participants completed a questionnaire with 24 closed ended questions on various factors related to journal selection for publication. Factors such as publication frequency, journal citation, indexing, peer-review, impact factor, publication fees, acceptance or rejection rate, publishing house, previous submission and online submission process were considered. The responses were recorded using a Likert scale. Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency or homogeneity was 0.909. Descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney U test were employed for comparison of responses among study participants.Results. The mean weight of 24 criteria on a scale of 0 to 4 varied between 2.13 and 3.45. The results showed that indexing of journal (3.45±0.74), online submission (3.24±0.83), impact factor (3.11±0.91), peer-review process (3.0±1.02) and publication fees (2.99±1.11) were among the most important criteria to consider in journal selection.Conclusions Of the 24 factors considered by health researchers for journal selection, the most important were Journal indexing, online submission, impact factor, peer-review and publication fees. Compared to dental researchers, medical researchers perceived open access and peer-review process as significantly more important criteria.


2007 ◽  
Vol 34 (8) ◽  
pp. 946-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hubert Chanson

A research project is only completed when it has been published and shared with the community. Referees and peer experts play an important role in controlling the research quality. While some new electronic tools provide further means of disseminating some research information, the quality and impact of the works remain linked with some thorough expert-review process and publication in international scientific journals and books; unethical publishing standards are not acceptable. The writer argues that the new electronic aids do not replace scholarship or critical thinking, although they have an impact on the working environment of civil engineers.Key words: research publications, quality, impact, peer reviews.


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

1990 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
M. J. Brown

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 356-362
Author(s):  
Jennifer W. Means ◽  
Casey McCaffrey

Purpose The use of real-time recording technology for clinical instruction allows student clinicians to more easily collect data, self-reflect, and move toward independence as supervisors continue to provide continuation of supportive methods. This article discusses how the use of high-definition real-time recording, Bluetooth technology, and embedded annotation may enhance the supervisory process. It also reports results of graduate students' perception of the benefits and satisfaction with the types of technology used. Method Survey data were collected from graduate students about their use and perceived benefits of advanced technology to support supervision during their 1st clinical experience. Results Survey results indicate that students found the use of their video recordings useful for self-evaluation, data collection, and therapy preparation. The students also perceived an increase in self-confidence through the use of the Bluetooth headsets as their supervisors could provide guidance and encouragement without interrupting the flow of their therapy sessions by entering the room to redirect them. Conclusions The use of video recording technology can provide opportunities for students to review: videos of prospective clients they will be treating, their treatment videos for self-assessment purposes, and for additional data collection. Bluetooth technology provides immediate communication between the clinical educator and the student. Students reported that the result of that communication can improve their self-confidence, perceived performance, and subsequent shift toward independence.


2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-9
Author(s):  
Jill Parmenter ◽  
Sheryl Amaral ◽  
Julia Jackson

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