CORP: Assessing author compliance with data presentation guidelines for manuscript figures

2020 ◽  
Vol 318 (5) ◽  
pp. H1051-H1058
Author(s):  
Kara Hansell Keehan ◽  
Michelle C. Gaffney ◽  
Irving H. Zucker
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Data Presentation ◽  
Circulatory Physiology ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Data Points ◽  
Timely Fashion ◽  
Additional Figure

The present study was undertaken to address the concern that author compliance with American Physiological Society (APS) journal instructions to authors for data presentation in manuscript figures is inadequate. Common instances of noncompliance are omitted molecular weight markers for immunoblots and bar graphs lacking individual data points. The American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology ( AJP-Heart and Circ) editorial team designed a program to assess figure data presentation in submitted manuscripts. The intended outcome was to improve author compliance with APS data presentation guidelines and to improve overall rigor and reproducibility in articles published in AJP-Heart and Circ. The AJP-Heart and Circ team invited 37 peer reviewers to participate in a figure reviewer project (FRp). Over a period of five months, 32 first-revision manuscripts were enrolled in the FRp. Each manuscript was reviewed by the original peer reviewers and an additional figure reviewer (FR). Post-peer review, corresponding authors and FRs were surveyed for insight into their experiences. Of the 32 corresponding authors invited, 20 (63%) responded to the survey. In response to the survey, 100% of respondents stated that peer review was performed in a timely fashion despite the additional FR. When asked whether the FR experience had any effect on how one would present data in manuscript figures in future submissions, 65% of authors and 83% of FRs said yes. In addition, 63% of authors responding agreed that the overall quality of their figures was improved after revising based on FR comments. This exercise resulted in improved compliance with APS data presentation guidelines and changed attitudes among both authors and reviewers as to the need for consistent and clear data presentation in manuscript figures. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The goal of the American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology figure reviewer program was to improve author compliance with existing APS data presentation instructions for manuscript figures. The result was an improvement in compliance with these guidelines. Time from submission to final decision did not significantly increase for papers with the additional figure reviewer, and both figure reviewers and corresponding authors reported positive feedback in post-program surveys.

Thanking our 2020 peer review panel

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-42
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Important Work ◽  
Review Panel ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
The Third ◽  
Peer Reviewers

The team at the Journal of Paramedic Practice would like to extend our sincerest thanks to the following people who have generously devoted their time to volunteering as peer reviewers for us in 2020, despite it being an exceptionally challenging and demanding year. For the third consecutive year, we are publishing a list of our peer review panel for the year as a small way of recognising the extremely important work of our referees, without whom we could not produce the high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed content our readers have come to rely upon and rightly expect. Our peer reviewers are highly valued members of the editorial team at the Journal of Paramedic Practice and our international quarterly journal, International Paramedic Practice. We are grateful not only for the dedication of their time, but also their energy, expert knowledge and insight. Peer reviewers strengthen the quality of our authors'research and writing, and help to ensure that we publish only those articles that contribute meaningfully to the evidence base.

FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH: сб.науч.тр./ OEAPS Inc.; редкол.: Флора Бертран (отв.ред.) [и др.]. - Берлин, Германия : OEAPS Inc., 2018. - 58 С.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Мария Григорьевна Алпатова ◽  
Мария Игоревна Щеглова ◽  
Elmira Kalybaevna Adil’bekova ◽  
Nuradin Alibaev ◽  
Arunas Svitojus
Keyword(s):  
Service Sector ◽  
Applied Research ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Main Criterion ◽  
The Public ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Verification Process

The conference is a major international forum for analyzing and discussing trends and approaches in research in the field of basic science and applied research. We provide a platform for discussions on innovative, theoretical and empirical research. The form of the conference: in absentia, without specifying the form in the collection of articles. Working languages: Russian, English Doctors and candidates of science, scientists, specialists of various profiles and directions, applicants for academic degrees, teachers, graduate students, undergraduates, students are invited to participate in the conference. There is one blind verification process in the journal. All articles will be initially evaluated by the editor for compliance with the journal. Manuscripts that are considered appropriate are then usually sent to at least two independent peer reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the article. The editor is responsible for the final decision on whether to accept or reject the article. The editor's decision is final. The main criterion used in assessing the manuscript submitted to the journal is: uniqueness or innovation in the work from the point of view of the methodology being developed and / or its application to a problem of particular importance in the public sector or service sector and / or the setting in which the efforts, for example, in the developing region of the world. That is, the very model / methodology, application and context of problems, at least one of them must be unique and important. Additional criteria considered in the consideration of the submitted document are its accuracy, organization / presentation (ie logical flow) and recording quality.

FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH April 2019: сб.науч.тр./ OEAPS Inc.; редкол.: Флора Бертран (отв.ред.) [и др.]. - Берлин, Германия : OEAPS Inc., 2019. - 98 C.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Изабелла Станиславовна Чибисова ◽  
Диана Ильгизаровна Шарипова ◽  
Альфия Галиевна Зулькарнаева ◽  
Ксения Александровна Дулова ◽  
Садег Амирзадеган ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Service Sector ◽  
Applied Research ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Main Criterion ◽  
The Public ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Verification Process

The conference is a major international forum for analyzing and discussing trends and approaches in research in the field of basic science and applied research. We provide a platform for discussions on innovative, theoretical and empirical research. The form of the conference: in absentia, without specifying the form in the collection of articles. Working languages: Russian, English Doctors and candidates of science, scientists, specialists of various profiles and directions, applicants for academic degrees, teachers, graduate students, undergraduates, students are invited to participate in the conference. There is one blind verification process in the journal. All articles will be initially evaluated by the editor for compliance with the journal. Manuscripts that are considered appropriate are then usually sent to at least two independent peer reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the article. The editor is responsible for the final decision on whether to accept or reject the article. The editor's decision is final. The main criterion used in assessing the manuscript submitted to the journal is: uniqueness or innovation in the work from the point of view of the methodology being developed and / or its application to a problem of particular importance in the public sector or service sector and / or the setting in which the efforts, for example, in the developing region of the world. That is, the very model / methodology, application and context of problems, at least one of them must be unique and important. Additional criteria considered in the consideration of the submitted document are its accuracy, organization / presentation (ie logical flow) and recording quality.

scholarly journals The Quality of Statistical Reporting and Data Presentation in Predatory Dental Journals Was Lower Than in Non-Predatory Journals

Entropy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 468
Author(s):  
Pentti Nieminen ◽  
Sergio E. Uribe
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Data Presentation ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Highly Cited

Proper peer review and quality of published articles are often regarded as signs of reliable scientific journals. The aim of this study was to compare whether the quality of statistical reporting and data presentation differs among articles published in ‘predatory dental journals’ and in other dental journals. We evaluated 50 articles published in ‘predatory open access (OA) journals’ and 100 clinical trials published in legitimate dental journals between 2019 and 2020. The quality of statistical reporting and data presentation of each paper was assessed on a scale from 0 (poor) to 10 (high). The mean (SD) quality score of the statistical reporting and data presentation was 2.5 (1.4) for the predatory OA journals, 4.8 (1.8) for the legitimate OA journals, and 5.6 (1.8) for the more visible dental journals. The mean values differed significantly (p < 0.001). The quality of statistical reporting of clinical studies published in predatory journals was found to be lower than in open access and highly cited journals. This difference in quality is a wake-up call to consume study results critically. Poor statistical reporting indicates wider general lower quality in publications where the authors and journals are less likely to be critiqued by peer review.

scholarly journals Evaluating, Improving, and Appreciating Peer Review at IJTMB

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Ann Blair Kennedy, LMT, BCTMB, DrPH
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Improve Efficiency ◽  
Peer Reviewers

  Peer review is a mainstay of scientific publishing and, while peer reviewers and scientists report satisfaction with the process, peer review has not been without criticism. Within this editorial, the peer review process at the IJTMB is defined and explained. Further, seven steps are identified by the editors as a way to improve efficiency of the peer review and publication process. Those seven steps are: 1) Ask authors to submit possible reviewers; 2) Ask reviewers to update profiles; 3) Ask reviewers to “refer a friend”; 4) Thank reviewers regularly; 5) Ask published authors to review for the Journal; 6) Reduce the length of time to accept peer review invitation; and 7) Reduce requested time to complete peer review. We believe these small requests and changes can have a big effect on the quality of reviews and speed in which manuscripts are published. This manuscript will present instructions for completing peer review profiles. Finally, we more formally recognize and thank peer reviewers from 2018–2020.

scholarly journals The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Giordan ◽  
Attila Csikasz-Nagy ◽  
Andrew M. Collings ◽  
Federico Vaggi
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Decision Type ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Decision Times

BackgroundPublishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications.MethodsHere we examine an element of the editorial process ateLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions toeLifesince June 2012, of which 2,750 were sent for peer review, using R and Python to perform the statistical analysis.ResultsThe Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and 5 days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). There was no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates for published articles where the Reviewing Editor served as one of the peer reviewers.ConclusionsAn important aspect ofeLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.

scholarly journals The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Giordan ◽  
Attila Csikasz-Nagy ◽  
Andrew M. Collings ◽  
Federico Vaggi
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Decision Type ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Decision Times

BackgroundPublishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications.MethodsHere we examine an element of the editorial process ateLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions toeLifesince June 2012, of which 2,747 were sent for peer review. This subset of 2747 papers was then analysed in detail.  ResultsThe Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and five days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). Moreover, editors acting as reviewers had no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates.ConclusionsAn important aspect ofeLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.

scholarly journals Peer Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Editorial Team ◽  
Deni Firmansyah
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Peer Reviewers

We would like to thank our peer reviewers for the precious contributions in providing clinical,scientific, and methodological expertise for JMH Volume 3 Number 2 August 2021. Weappreciate every thoughtful review of submitted manuscripts and for making importantcontributions to improve the scientific quality of articles published in JMH.We listed the names in alphabetical order.Abram Pratama, dr., Sp.PD.Adhi Kristianto Sugianli, dr., Sp.PK(K), M.Kes.Prof. Dr. Asep Sukohar, dr., M.Kes.Deta Tanuwidjaja, dr., Sp.KFR., AIFO-K.Dimas Erlangga Luftimas, dr., M.Kes., Sp.GK.Edwin Setiabudi, dr., Sp.PD-KKV, FINASIMFenny, dr., Sp.PK., M.Kes.Ginna Megawati, dr., M.Kes.Grace Puspasari, dr., M.GiziDr. Guswan Wiwaha, dr., MM.Dr. Hana Ratnawati, dr., M.Kes., PA(K)Juwita Ningsih, drg., M.Sc.Dr. Meilinah Hidayat, dr., M.Kes.Santun Bhekti Rahimah, dr., M.Kes.The, Fransiska Eltania, dr., M.Kes., A3M.Teresa Lucretia, dr., M.Kes.Prof. Wahyuni Lukita Atmadja, dr., Ph.D.Yenni Limyati, dr., S.Sn., Sp.KFR.Yuktiana Kharisma, dr., M.Kes.

scholarly journals Criteria for Peer Reviewing the Original Articles Submitted to a Biomedical Journal: Intellectual Honesty is the Best Policy.

2004 ◽  
Vol 43 (152) ◽  
pp. 103-110
Author(s):  
Bishnu Hari Paudel
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Quality Review ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Biomedical Publication ◽  
Timely Review ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Biomedical Publications ◽  
Review Criteria

Peer review - a process of assessing the quality of manuscripts submitted to a journal – is an establishednorm in biomedical publications. It is viewed as an extension of scientific process. The peer-reviewed researcharticles are considered trustworthy because they are believed to be unbiased and independent. The processof reviewing is a privilege and prestige. It is highly responsible, intellectually honest, and difficult job.Being expert in certain area of biomedical science is a prerequisite for reviewers. Young peer reviewerstrained in epidemiology or statistics produce high-quality review. The International Congresses on PeerReview in Biomedical Publication have shown many unresolved issues related to preparation or handling ofmanuscripts by a journal. Therefore, it is vital to identify authentic peer reviewers to ensure qualitypublication, thus, a set of peer review criteria is proposed for peer reviewing original articles. It is useful inquantifying (scoring) the manuscript quality. The proposed scoring system yields three categories ofmanuscripts: the first category is considered acceptable for publication after minor modification by editorialboard and/or reviewers, the second – requires rewriting and resubmission, and the third – rejected. Thesecriteria are preliminary guidelines, and require timely review. They are expected to sensitise peer reviewers,editors, contributors, and readers to move towards greater honesty and responsibility while working withmanuscripts. In summary, if the criteria are used they will facilitate editorial management of manuscripts,render more justice to authors and biomedical science, and improve publication quality.Key Words: Biomedical publication, peer review, peer review criteria, scoring of manuscripts, categories of manuscripts, journal of Nepal Medical Association.

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 895 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Scientific Conference ◽  
Full Paper ◽  
Scientific Content ◽  
Informative Content ◽  
Minimum Criteria ◽  
E Mail

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 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: All submitted full papers were peer-reviewed by two reviewers. The acceptance was granted if the recommendations from the reviewers are positive. The criteria are based on compliance with the directions of the International Scientific Conference “Regions of new development: the current state of natural complexes and their protection”, technical and scientific content and article submission guidelines. There were three review processes: Initial Review, Peer Review and Recommendation. Initial Review The editor evaluates each manuscript in the submission track to determine if its topic and content are suitable for consideration for the conference before being reviewed. Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum criteria are returned to the authors. Peer Review Manuscripts that pass the initial review by the editors will be sent to two (2) referees based on their expertise. Reviewer identities are concealed from the author, and throughout the review process. The reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, the correspondence of the name and its content, informative content of the abstract, adequacy and correctness of citation of works in this field, confirmation of conclusions and conclusions by the data of the work, compliance, quality of references and design of the list of references. Reviewers were asked to fill out a review form and submit it within two weeks. After collecting all the reviews of the articles, the editors make a recommendation on the acceptability of the manuscript. Acceptance Decision Based on the reviewer’s comments, the editor makes a final decision on the acceptability of the manuscript and communicates to the authors the decision, along with reviewers’ reports. Based on the reviewer’s comments, the editor makes a final decision on the acceptability of the manuscript and communicates to the authors the decision, along with reviewers’ reports. Conference submission management system: Participants submitted an application for participation in the conference by sending it to the conference address: [email protected] After submitting the application, the author sent his article to the conference address: [email protected] Number of submissions received: 82 articles received Number of submissions sent for review: 70 articles submitted for review Number of submissions accepted: 44 articles were accepted by the scientific committee of the conference Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 44/82x100 = 53,7% Average number of reviews per paper: On average, two reviews per article Total number of reviewers involved: 30 reviewers Any additional info on review process: The review process was conducted using the e-mail of the organizing committee of the conference and the e-mail of the reviewers. The invitation to review the full paper was sent by email. Each full paper submitted was sent to two (2) reviewers to assess the full paper based on sections as follows: 1. Compliance of the content of the article with the profile of the publication. 2. The originality of the full paper. 3. Whether the work has previously been published in other journals. 4. Adequacy of consideration and correctness of citation of work in this field. 5. The correspondence of the name and its content. 6. Informative content of the report. 7. The quality of the drawings. 8. The quality of the tables in terms of content. 9. Confirmation of conclusions and conclusions by the data of the work. 10. Compliance, quality of references and design of the list of references. 11. The need to clarify the conclusions. 12. Strengths and weaknesses of the article in terms of content. 13. General evaluation of the article by reviewers. 14. Reviewer’s recommendations, accepted or rejected article. 15. The reviewer’s specific comment to the author of the article. All the comments by the reviewer were sent to the author to do the correction within two (2) weeks. The author needs to submit the corrected version of the full paper together with the checklist of corrections. The editor checked if the authors made all corrections. After that, the finished article was sent to the author for final verification before being sent to the publisher. Contact person for queries: Interim Director, Sc.D. (Biology), IWEP FEB RAS Maria V. Kryukova E-mail: [email protected]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document