What do journal editors want? … and everything you wanted to know about the peer review process for journal publication

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eimear Muir-Cochrane
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Journal Publication ◽  
Journal Editors

scholarly journals Online Journals: the Path Towards Visibility and Quality

1970 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 175-184
Author(s):  
Julie Walker
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Online Journal ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Virtuous Cycle ◽  
Journal Visibility

Increasing the visibility of a journal is the key to increasing quality. The International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications works with journal editors in the global South to publish their journals online and to increase the efficiency of the peer review process. Editors are trained in using the Open Journals System software and in online journal management and strategy so they have the tools and knowledge needed to initiate a ‘virtuous cycle' in which visibility leads to an increase in the number and quality of submissions and in turn, increased citations and impact. In order to maximise this increase in quality, it must be supported by strong editorial office processes and management. This article describes some of the issues and strategies faced by the editors INASP works with, placing a particular emphasis on Nepal Journals Online. Key words: INASP; Open Journals System; Journals Online Projects; Nepal Journals Online; journal visibility; peer review DOI: 10.3126/dsaj.v3i0.2786 Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol.3 2009 175-184

Barriers to reporting guideline adherence in point-of-care ultrasound research: a cross-sectional survey of authors and journal editors

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2020-111604
Author(s):  
Ross Prager ◽  
Luke Gagnon ◽  
Joshua Bowdridge ◽  
Rudy R Unni ◽  
Trevor A McGrath ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medicine ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
Journal Editors

ObjectiveAlthough the literature supporting the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) continues to grow, incomplete reporting of primary diagnostic accuracy studies has previously been identified as a barrier to translating research into practice and to performing unbiased systematic reviews. This study assesses POCUS investigator and journal editor attitudes towards barriers to adhering to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 guidelines.Design, setting, participantsTwo separate surveys using a 5-point Likert scale were sent to POCUS study investigators and journal editors to assess for knowledge, attitude and behavioural barriers to the complete reporting of POCUS research. Respondents were identified based on a previous study assessing STARD 2015 adherence for POCUS studies published in emergency medicine, anaesthesia and critical care journals. Responses were anonymously linked to STARD 2015 adherence data from the previous study. Written responses were thematically grouped into the following categories: knowledge, attitude and behavioural barriers to quality reporting, or other. Likert response items are reported as median with IQRs.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the median Likert score for the investigator and editor surveys assessing knowledge, attitude and behavioural beliefs about barriers to adhering to the STARD 2015 guidelines.ResultsThe investigator survey response rate was 18/69 (26%) and the editor response rate was 5/21 (24%). Most investigator respondents were emergency medicine practitioners (13/21, 62%). Two-thirds of investigators were aware of the STARD 2015 guidelines (12/18, 67%) and overall agreed that incomplete reporting limits generalisability and the ability to detect risk of bias (median 4 (4, 5)). Investigators felt that the STARD 2015 guidelines were useful, easy to find and easy to use (median 4 (4, 4.25); median 4 (4, 4.25) and median 4 (3, 4), respectively). There was a shared opinion held by investigators and editors that the peer review process be primarily responsible for ensuring complete research reporting (median 4 (3, 4) and median 4 (3.75, 4), respectively). Three of 18 authors (17%) felt that the English publication language of STARD 2015 was a barrier to adherence.ConclusionsAlthough investigators and editors recognise the importance of completely reported research, reporting quality is still a core issue for POCUS research. The shared opinion held by investigators and editors that the peer review process be primarily responsible for reporting quality is potentially problematic; we view completely reported research as an integral part of the research process that investigators are responsible for, with the peer review process serving as another additional layer of quality control. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals, auditing reporting guideline adherence during the peer review process and translation of STARD 2015 guidelines into additional languages may improve reporting completeness for the acute POCUS literature.Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework Registry (https://osf.io/5pzxs/).

scholarly journals The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study

2020 ◽  
Vol 125 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maciej J. Mrowinski ◽  
Agata Fronczak ◽  
Piotr Fronczak ◽  
Olgica Nedic ◽  
Aleksandar Dekanski
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Insight Into

Abstract In this paper, we provide insight into the editorial process as seen from the perspective of journal editors. We study a dataset obtained from the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, which contains information about submitted and rejected manuscripts, in order to find differences between local (Serbian) and external (non-Serbian) submissions. We show that external submissions (mainly from India, Iran and China) constitute the majority of all submissions, while local submissions are in the minority. Most of submissions are rejected for technical reasons (e.g. wrong manuscript formatting or problems with images) and many users resubmit the same paper without making necessary corrections. Manuscripts with just one author are less likely to pass the technical check, which can be attributed to missing metadata. Articles from local authors are better prepared and require fewer resubmissions on average before they are accepted for peer review. The peer review process for local submissions takes less time than for external papers and local submissions are more likely to be accepted for publication. Also, while there are more men than women among external users, this trend is reversed for local users. In the combined group of local and external users, articles submitted by women are more likely to be published than articles submitted by men.

Call to Action to All Surgery Journal Editors for Diversity in the Editorial and Peer Review Process

JAMA Surgery ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 155 (11) ◽  
pp. 1015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melina R. Kibbe ◽  
Julie Freischlag
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Call To Action ◽  
Journal Editors

Blind versus Nonblind Review: Survey of Selected Medical Journals

1988 ◽  
Vol 22 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 601-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Cleary ◽  
Bruce Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Select Group ◽  
Lengthy Process

The publication of scientific research in medical journals is a lengthy process. Submitted manuscripts are often reviewed by two or more outside reviewers who evaluate each manuscript for publication acceptability. The process of manuscript evaluation by an editor-selected reviewer (“peers” or “referees”) is termed “peer review.” One issue involving the peer-review process is the use of blind versus nonblind referees. The purpose of this survey was to determine the percentage of a select group of medicine-related journals that blind their reviewers. We surveyed 114 English language journals. Journal editors were sent a survey that asked two questions: (1) are the referees who review your manuscripts blinded to the identity of the authors? and (2) is the editor blinded to the identity of the authors until after the review of the manuscripts is complete? Ninety-six of 114 (84.2 percent) surveys were returned. Ten journals published invited manuscripts only and were excluded from the survey. Only 18.6 percent (16 of 86) of the journals currently blind referees. None of the journals' editors were blind to the identity of the manuscripts' authors.

Social Media and The Publication Process

2020 ◽  
pp. 76-89
Author(s):  
Ilana Redstone
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Open Inquiry ◽  
Free Inquiry ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Academic Publications ◽  
Media Review

The three beliefs have created a situation where certain ideas, claims, and questions are protected from criticism, and therefore from open inquiry. As a corollary, academic publications that present ideas running counter to these beliefs are subject to what is in essence an extra round of social media–driven review that starts after a paper has already successfully navigated the traditional peer-review process and been published. This dynamic acts as a form of censorship that can impact a journal’s immediate handling of the paper in question. In addition, the very existence of postpublication social media review will act to shape the behavior of researchers and journal editors. The result is an environment with substantial constraints on free inquiry.

scholarly journals THE LIMITED EFFECTIVENESS OF PRESTIGE AS AN INTERVENTION ON THE HEALTH OF MEDICAL JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS

Episteme ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole J. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Academic Medicine ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Dual Role ◽  
Traditional System ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Limited Effectiveness

AbstractUnder the traditional system of peer-reviewed publication, the degree of prestige conferred to authors by successful publication is tied to the degree of the intellectual rigor of its peer review process: ambitious scientists do well professionally by doing well epistemically. As a result, we should expect journal editors, in their dual role as epistemic evaluators and prestige-allocators, to have the power to motivate improved author behavior through the tightening of publication requirements. Contrary to this expectation, I will argue that the publication bias literature in academic medicine demonstrates that editor interventions have had limited effectiveness in improving the health of the publication and trial registration record, suggesting that much stronger interventions are needed.

scholarly journals Journal editors’ perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e035600
Author(s):  
Ketevan Glonti ◽  
Isabelle Boutron ◽  
David Moher ◽  
Darko Hren
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
General Medicine ◽  
Personal Communication ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Communication Practices

ObjectiveTo generate an understanding of the communication practices that might influence the peer-review process in biomedical journals.MethodRecruitment was based on purposive maximum variation sampling. We conducted semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis method.Participants56 journal editors from general medicine (n=13) and specialty (n=43) biomedical journals. Most were editor-in-chiefs (n=39), men (n=40) and worked part time (n=50).ResultsOur analysis generated four themes (1) providing minimal guidance to peer reviewers—two subthemes described the way journal editors rationalised their behaviour: (a) peer reviewers should know without guidelines how to review and (b) detailed guidance and structure might have a negative effect; (2) communication strategies of engagement with peer reviewers—two opposing strategies that journal editors employed to handle peer reviewers: (a) use of direct and personal communication to motivate peer reviewers and (b) use of indirect communication to avoid conflict; (3) concerns about impact of review model on communication—maintenance of anonymity as a means of facilitating critical and unburdened communication and minimising biases and (4) different practices in the moderation of communication between authors and peer reviewers—some journal editors actively interjected themselves into the communication chain to guide authors through peer reviewers’ comments, others remained at a distance, leaving it to the authors to work through peer reviewers’ comments.ConclusionsThese journal editors’ descriptions reveal several communication practices that might have a significant impact on the peer-review process. Editorial strategies to manage miscommunication are discussed. Further research on these proposed strategies and on communication practices from the point of view of authors and peer reviewers is warranted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document