Book review: Brian Paltridge, The Discourse of Peer Review: Reviewing Submissions to Academic Journals

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 668-671
Author(s):  
Lilia Raitskaya
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Academic Journals

Book Review: Writing for Academic Journals Second Edition

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andi Asrifan ◽  
Abd Ghofur
Keyword(s):  
Health Service ◽  
Professional Life ◽  
Professional Lives ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Writing For Publication ◽  
Undergraduate Level ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Many

Anyone who wants to get ahead in academic or professional life today knows that it’s a question of publish or perish. This applies to colleges, universities, and even hospital Trusts. Yet writing for publication is one of the many skills which isn’t formally taught. Once beyond undergraduate level, it’s normally assumed that you will pick up the necessary skills as you go along.Writing for Academic Journalsseeks to rectify this omission. Rowena Murray is an experienced writer on the subject (author of How to Write a Thesis and How to Survive Your Viva) and she is well aware of the time pressures people are under in their professional lives. What she has to say should be encouraging for those people in ‘new’ universities, people working in disciplines which have only recently been considered academic, and those in professions such as the health service which are under pressure to become more academic.

scholarly journals Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Wager ◽  
◽  
Sabine Kleinert
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
List Type ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Published Research

Abstract Background Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic. Methods These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication. Results The main recommendations are that research institutions should: develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers. Conclusions Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases.

Editorial Note - Vol. 15., No. 2, 2021

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Lemnitzer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Discussion Forum ◽  
Editorial Note ◽  
Case Histories ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Technical Content ◽  
New Type

Welcome to Issue 2 of DFI’s Journal Vol. 15. We are happy to introduce six publications which span a wide mix of manuscript types and technical content. While most published papers in the DFI Journal have historically been research papers and technical case histories, this issue introduces a forum paper and a book review in addition to valuable research publications. Forum papers, a new type of paper to the DFI Journal, encompass a much shorter manuscript style, and can include commentaries, opinions, research highlights (e.g., of work currently underway), and responses to previously published papers. Forum papers do not require a response from the author if they discuss another author’s manuscript. However, should the forum paper be closer to a discussion, and should the author of the discussed manuscript desire to provide a response, the submission will be converted into a formal “discussion.” Forum papers and book reviews first undergo a review within the editorial board, and are only subject to external peer review if the content is found to be technically controversial and/or should the area of expertise discussed in the manuscript lie outside the capacities of the editorial board. Hence the Forum Paper is a unique outlet with much technical and editorial flexibility and will, along with the newly introduced book review, enrich the palette of products offered by the DFI Journal.

Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals

2016 ◽  
pp. 75-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily A. Largent ◽  
Richard T. Snodgrass
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Academic Journals

Looking inside the world of peer review: Implications for graduate student writers

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Paltridge
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Graduate Student ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Student Writers ◽  
Academic Appointment ◽  
The World ◽  
The Future ◽  
Research Students

Getting published in academic journals is increasingly important for research students in terms of gaining employment when they complete their studies and, in the future, for tenure and promotion applications once they have obtained an academic appointment. In this paper, I discuss some of the challenges that student (and early career) writers face when submitting articles to academic journals and, in particular, how they might better understand and respond to the reports they receive on their work.

scholarly journals Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Klebel ◽  
Stefan Reichmann ◽  
Jessica Polka ◽  
Gary McDowell ◽  
Naomi Penfold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Clear Information

AbstractClear and findable publishing policies are important for authors to choose appropriate journals for publication. We investigated the clarity of policies of 171 major academic journals across disciplines regarding peer review and preprinting. 31.6% of journals surveyed do not provide information on the type of peer review they use. Information on whether preprints can be posted or not is unclear in 39.2% of journals. 58.5% of journals offer no clear information on whether reviewer identities are revealed to authors. Around 75% of journals have no clear policy on co-reviewing, citation of preprints, and publication of reviewer identities. Information regarding practices of Open Peer Review is even more scarce, with <20% of journals providing clear information. Having found a lack of clear information, we conclude by examining the implications this has for researchers (especially early career) and the spread of open research practices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document