scholarly journals Assessment of Variables that Influence Agreement Amongst Reviewers for Foot & Ankle International

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473011418S0030
Author(s):  
John Kwon ◽  
Tyler Gonzalez ◽  
Chris Miller ◽  
Shera Palmer Cook ◽  
David Thordarson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Initial Decision ◽  
Area Of Interest

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: The peer-review process is a rigorous process under which manuscripts are assessed for their overall scientific quality and is generally accepted as the highest standard of scientific scrutiny with regard to medical publishing. A common criticism regards the often disparate nature of reviewer recommendations when a decision is rendered which belies the supposed uniformity of the review process. The purpose of this investigation was to: (1) examine the historic level of agreement amongst reviewers for Foot & Ankle International (FAI) and (2) to assess variables which may influence agreement in order to improve the peer-review process. Methods: Approval to conduct this study was obtained from the Editorial Board of FAI. All manuscripts submitted to FAI during 2015 which underwent peer-review were included in the analysis. For each reviewed manuscript, demographic data was collected regarding specific reviewer and manuscript characteristics in a de-identified manner. Univariate analysis was performed. Results: 442 manuscripts underwent peer-review by 198 reviewers during the study period. During this time period, other papers were reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and rejected prior to being sent out for review. Of the 884 reviews performed, 339 (38%) recommended rejection, 353 (40%) recommended revision and resubmission and191(22%) recommended accept. Only 199 manuscripts (45%) had a decision rendered in which both reviewers agreed on the initial recommendation.The most common initial decision was rejection (52.7%) followed by revise and resubmit (42.8%). Only 20 manuscripts (4.5%) received an outright acceptance upon initial review. Comparing the agreeing versus disagreeing reviewers, there was no difference in demographic data such as reviewer age or experience. When examining key words (designated by reviewers as a particular area of interest within foot and ankle), there was no association between shared interests and level of reviewer agreement. Overall, for all reviewers, mean acceptance rate was19% (+/- 16%), mean reject rate 37% (+/- 20%) and mean revise 44% (+/- 19%). Conclusion: Regarding initial decision for publication in FAI, there was only 45% agreement amongst reviewers for manuscripts which underwent peer-review in 2015. However, no reviewer-specific variables examined in this investigation were found to correlate with agreement. Despite reviewers having similar interests in various aspects of foot and ankle surgery, this did not lead to an increased likelihood of agreement. Agreement and more uniform assessment of manuscripts by reviewers may be increased by specific education.

Editorial Policies Overview

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Chen
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Editorial Policies ◽  
Scientific Experts ◽  
Open Access Publisher ◽  
Single Blind

As a global open access publisher, Tech Science Press is dedicated to disseminating cutting-edge scholarly research among scientific community by advocating an immediate, world-wide and barrier-free access to the research we publish. To ensure all publication meeting our ethical and scientific quality standards, each submission goes through a rigorous review process, including pre-peer-review by relevant editorial board, a single-blind peer-review process by scientific experts, revision following reviewers’ comments as well as final approval by the editorial board.

scholarly journals Bridging the Otolaryngology Peer Review Knowledge Gap

2016 ◽  
Vol 155 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecelia E. Schmalbach
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Development Program ◽  
Neck Surgery ◽  
Associate Editor ◽  
Knowledge Gap ◽  
Constructive Feedback ◽  
Area Of Interest

Current otolaryngology literature and future scientific direction rely heavily on a rigorous peer review process. Just as manuscripts warrant thoughtful review with constructive feedback to the authors, the same can be said for critiques written by novice peer reviewers. Formal scientific peer review training programs are lacking. Recognizing this knowledge gap, Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery is excited to offer its new Resident Reviewer Development Program. All otolaryngology residents who are postgraduate year 2 and above and in excellent academic standing are eligible to participate in this mentored program, during which they will conduct 6 manuscript reviews under the direction of a seasoned reviewer in his or her subspecialty area of interest. By completing reviews alongside a mentor, participants gain the required skills to master the peer review process—a first step that often leads to journal editorial board and associate editor invitations.

scholarly journals How to choose and become a reviewer for a scientific medical journal

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 151
Author(s):  
Paola Gnerre ◽  
Giorgio Vescovo ◽  
Paola Granata ◽  
Cecilia Politi ◽  
Andrea Fontanella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Publication Delay ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Good Review

Peer review is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. The peer review of scientific manuscripts is a cornerstone of modern science and medicine. Some journals have difficulty in finding appropriate reviewers who are able to complete reviews on time avoiding publication delay. We discuss some of the main issues involved during the peer review process. The reviewer has a direct and important impact on the quality of a scientific medical Journal. Editors select reviewers on the basis of their expertise. Reviewers are more likely to accept to review a manuscript when it is relevant to their area of interest. They should respond to ethical principles, excluding any conflict of interest condition. The reviewer has to be professional, constructive, tactful, empathetic and respectful. Structured approaches, quality indicators and step-by-step process check list formats could be useful in obtaining a good review.

scholarly journals Chief Editor's Voice

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Prof. Dr. Ashok Kumar Jha
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Research Journal ◽  
Service Commission ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Double Blinded

The RMC of the campus feels much pleasure to publish the annual multi-disciplinary peer reviewed research journal DRISTIKON as vol. 11(1). The journal and the articles published in it are clear evidence and fulfill the requirements laid down by UGC, Nepal, Tribhuvan University Service Commission, APA 7th ed. and other platforms. The journal is designed to serve as an outlet for an intellectual forum for the communication of intellectual ideas among professionals and other social scientists in relevant areas in general and with special reference to Nepal. The board welcomes all the professionals, researchers and all those interested to publish their research findings with significant contribution to society, education sector and international platform. Authors are also encouraged to submit papers which are related to current international, national or local issues. Almost all the scholarly and research articles published in the journal undergo the editorial peer review process prior to publication to fulfill the requirements of peer review process guided by UGC, Nepal and international standard. The goal of the peer review process is to ensure that the valid article is accepted, the messy article cleaned up, and the invalid article rejected. The board of editors has accepted the reviewer’s recommendations. All the articles submitted for publication are subjected to rigorous double blinded peer review to ensure its quality before it gets published.  Manuscripts submitted to this journal must not have been published or accepted for publication or submitted for publication elsewhere. The journal strictly follows guidelines of APA 7th ed. as well as strongly opposes plagiarized contents without proper citation. Following the necessary corrections and additions resulting from the review process the twenty accepted papers were included into the issue covering the specific areas of Nepali, English, Political Science, Science and Management. The cooperation extended by scholars and institutions in publishing this journal is highly appreciated. The opinions expressed in the articles are the author’s own and do not reflect the view of either the publisher or the editorial board. All manuscripts once published becomes the property of the publisher. We hope that inspiration and encouragement from the readers will continue to keep the ‘Dristikon’ alive and develop. We are also looking forward to receiving your comments and suggestions for further improvement in the future. We are grateful to the peer reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. The editorial board heartily thanks all the writers who have contributed research articles. We would also like to give special thanks to the campus chief Mr. Damodar Bhandari for his constant support in terms of finance and administration for the publication of this journal.

scholarly journals Editorial for the Inaugural Issue: Grande Medical Journal (GMJ)

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Prakash Kafle
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Editorial Policy ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Clinical Images

We are proud and honored to launch the inaugural issue of our new academic endeavor – Grande Medical Journal (GMJ), published by Academic & Research Department, Grande International Hospital (GIH). GMJ is an annual, open, peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal that encompasses all fields of medicine and clinical practice. GMJ will be published both in print and online. It will be freely accessible via the internet through GIH’s website with open access to the full text of articles. There will be no subscription fees to the readers or processing fees for the authors. Publisher and authors who publish in the journal will jointly retain the copyright to their article. The editorial policy of GMJ will be guided by the high standards of scientific quality and integrity, professional responsibility, and ethical legacy. GMJ follows double-blind peer-review process. This minimizes the possibility of a biased opinion ensuring a responsible and ethical environment. GMJ will be initially published as one issue per year, and with contributions from national and international physicians and scientists, we aim to increase the frequency to two issues per year. GMJ will publish original research, clinical review, invited reviews, case report, clinical problem solving, clinical images, short communications, and editorials. This inaugural issue features fifteen scientific papers - 1 invited review, 3 original researches, 2 clinical reviews, 1 clinical images article, 8 case reports. The editorial board is committed to get the journal indexed in major search engines, indices, and databases to increase their visibility/ searchability and recognition in wider scientific community. For us to achieve these goals, in the forthcoming issues we seek to publish original, high-quality, peerreviewed papers including original clinical and editorials, clinical reviews, and correspondence on matters that will provide comprehensive coverage on all aspects and subspecialties of medicine. We would like to thank everyone who has worked diligently behind the scenes to bring this inaugural issue to fruition. This launch of the GMJ would not have been possible without the contributions from authors, and experienced and devoted reviewers who willingly signed up for timeconsuming workloads and enthusiastically agreed to provide their critical input to the review process. Thank you all for your trust and support. Indeed, it is a real honor to serve as the founding editors. Sincerely Yours,Prakash Kafle, MSEditor-in-Chief

scholarly journals The Rise of Predatory Journals in Foot and Ankle Surgery: Propitious or Detrimental?

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 2473011420S0009
Author(s):  
Adeshina Adeyemo ◽  
Umur Aydogan
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Ankle Surgery ◽  
Online Archive

Category Other Introduction/Purpose: In the world of foot and ankle surgery, much like other surgical fields, research has always been a strong foundation for advancing the field and making strides into improving our knowledge base, perfecting surgical techniques and discovering ways of improving patient outcomes. In recent years, there has been the advent of predatory journals in orthopaedic surgery, though many clinicians may not be familiar with what predatory journals are. The aim of our study is to objectively analyze F&A surgery predatory journals and compare them to higher impact journals in F&A surgery and dispute whether or not predatory journals are beneficial or detrimental to the field of F&A. Methods: Our inclusion criteria involved all existing foot and ankle journals that were considered to be predatory according to Beall’s criteria. Our authors viewed Beall’s online archive, in addition to a recent publication by Yang et al (4), in which we were able to gather a list of several predatory journals related to the field of foot and ankle surgery. After discussion with the authors, it was decided to select three of the higher impact well-known foot and ankle journals to use as a comparison to the predatory journals. The journals that were selected were the Foot and Ankle International journal (AOFAS), Foot and ankle specialist, and the European Foot and ankle specialist (EFAS). Many journal demographics factors (ISSN, peer review process, PubMed indexig, etc) were compared between both types of journals. Results: Of 7 predatory journals, only 2 (28.6%) responded to an online message in regard to the demographics of their journal. Of the journals that responded, none of the journals directly answered all of the questions that were asked. Only 4 of the 7 journals (57%) disclosed their impact factor, and they ranged from 1.508 to 2.52. 2 journals (28.6%) had an editorial board, while one (14%) did not have an editorial board. Information regarding the editorial board was unable to be gathered from 4 journals, as they did not respond to online messages. 4 journals disclosed an article processing fee ranging from $360-$2145. Conclusion: With financial incentives and job promotions being based on research publications, more and more predatory journals are being created to allow authors in the field to publish. However, this rise in predatory journals is detrimental. With a lack of a thorough peer review for some journals, sky-high article processing fees, and hidden peer review processes, these journals are a threat to the next generation of researchers who are not savvy in literature review. We must make a push to have more stringent criteria to critique and index articles.

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 946 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Marine Geology ◽  
Scientific Discussion ◽  
Text Quality ◽  
Marine Geology And Geophysics

All papers published in this volume (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: Single-anonymous: authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, reviewers’ identities are hidden from authors. Main criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers: 1. Relevance to the scope of the Conference 2. Suitability & length of the title 3. Scientific originality 4. Adequacy of the abstract 5. Scientific quality 6. Text quality 7. English level • Conference submission management system: Full paper submission was fully managed by editorial board of Conference • Number of submissions received: 53 full papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 51 full papers • Number of submissions accepted: 48 full papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 90.56 % • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 (117 reviews) • Total number of reviewers involved: 51 reviewers (15 institutes) from 3 countries • Any additional info on review process: The review process and revision were conducted 3 rounds on average for each paper since the first submission after presentation at the conference. The first step was to check the format of paper and base quality of English level. The second-round of review was organized for papers with minor remarks from reviewers, for example the graphics or style. The third round required only for papers that need major modifications (scientific discussion on topic). All reviewers were asked to complete the review within enough time ranged no more than three weeks. We have asked authors to revise according to suggestions by reviewers within time ranged between 7-10 days. After being accepted, the final English proofread and format checking our specialists were carried out to ensure the quality prior to submission to IOP EES. • Contact person for queries: Name: Aleksandr Zakupin, Ph.D. Affiliation: Institute for Marine Geology and Geophysics, Department of Seismology Email: [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 875 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
State University ◽  
Advance Research ◽  
Primary Hypothesis ◽  
Scientific Station ◽  
E Mail

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: Single-blind • Conference submission management system: The submission processing had no a software system. Call-for-paper was placed on the Conference web page, the papers were submitted via e-mail. The reviews were asked and received via e-mails. • Number of submissions received: 118 • Number of submissions sent for review: 104 • Number of submissions accepted: 93 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 79% • Average number of reviews per paper: 1.9 • Total number of reviewers involved: 1,433 • Any additional info on review process: The consideration of the submitted manuscript included independent peer review process. At least two reviewers gave their view and remarks for each paper. All reviewers were asked to provide a detailed review with comments for authors and editors and evaluate paper taking into account the questions list (Is this work novel? Is this work scientifically correct (the experimental procedure and sequence)? Does the subject significantly advance research in the fields of research? Does it have high scientific quality? Does this work have significant proof to verify the primary hypothesis? Is this work incremental? Is the paper clearly written, concise and understandable? Should the English be improved? Is the paper scientifically sound and not misleading?). All reviewers also were asked to provide their recommendations about paper acceptance (to publish the paper “as is”; to publish the paper after minor revision; to publish the paper after major revision; to reject the paper). • Contact person for queries: Dr. Anna Godymchuk, Tobolsk Complex Scientific Station, [email protected] Prof. Svetlana Morkovina, Vice-rector of Voronezh State University of Forestry and Technologies named after G.F. Morozov, Russia [email protected]

scholarly journals Ensuring Quality and Status: Peer Review Practices in Kriterium, A Portal for Quality-Marked Monographs and Edited Volumes in Swedish SSH

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Björn Hammarfelt ◽  
Isak Hammar ◽  
Helena Francke
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Important Indicator ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Publication Patterns ◽  
Novel Approach

Although established forms of peer review are often criticized for being slow, secretive, and even unfair, they are repeatedly mentioned by academics as the most important indicator of quality in scholarly publishing. In many countries, the peer review of books is a less codified practice than that of journal articles or conference papers, and the processes and actors involved are far from uniform. In Sweden, the review process of books has seldom been formalized. However, more formal peer review of books has been identified as a response to the increasing importance placed on streamlined peer-reviewed publishing of journal articles in English, which has been described as a direct challenge to more pluralistic publication patterns found particularly in the humanities. In this study, we focus on a novel approach to book review, Kriterium, where an independent portal maintained by academic institutions oversees the reviewing of academic books. The portal administers peer reviews, providing a mark of quality through a process which involves reviewers, an academic coordinator, and an editorial board. The paper studies how this process functions in practice by exploring materials concerning 24 scholarly books reviewed within Kriterium. Our analysis specifically targets tensions identified in the process of reviewing books with a focus on three main themes, namely the intended audience, the edited volume, and the novel role of the academic coordinator. Moreover, we find that the two main aims of the portal–quality enhancement (making research better) and certification (displaying that research is of high quality)–are recurrent in deliberations made in the peer review process. Consequently, we argue that reviewing procedures and criteria of quality are negotiated within a broader discussion where more traditional forms of publishing are challenged by new standards and evaluation practices.

scholarly journals Thank You to Our 2020 Reviewers

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kit Sturgess
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Board Meeting ◽  
Diversity And Inclusion ◽  
Strategic Initiatives ◽  
New Information ◽  
First Time

2020 will be a year to remember! One of the standout features for me has been the speed with which ‘science’ has responded to the crisis in terms of developing and disseminating new information to the community highlighting the importance of digital communication – a space that Veterinary Evidence comfortably occupies. The availability of pre peer-reviewed papers has become the norm but it has also emphasised the essential need and benefit of the peer-review process as a significant number of pre-review papers have not made it through to ‘publication’ as issues were identified during the peer-review process. As Editor-in-chief it makes me proud and thankful that Veterinary Evidence has a strong but agile peer-review process and I would like to thank all of our editors and reviewers for their continued support and their diligence in meeting demanding timelines during of these challenging times allowing Veterinary Evidence to publish more content than ever before. Without your highly valued knowledge, expertise and insights Veterinary Evidence would not be growing into the key knowledge source that it is today. The Veterinary Evidence Editorial Board Meeting was held for the first time digitally on 7 December with the largest number of editorial board members able to attend. Members from across the globe were able to take part in wide and varied discussions around the development of the journal, resulting in important strategic initiatives and some key action points to pursue. The availability of the board to attend digitally will facilitate more frequent meetings allowing the journal to be more inclusive, and responsive to the changing landscape, as well as providing a digital recording of the event available for those board members unable to attend. Key areas discussed included development of the format of PICOs and further refining the process for approving them, strategies to encourage engagement and submissions from veterinary nurses, and the development of policies to encourage diversity and inclusion within the board and contributors to the journal, as well as ways to increase the reach of the journal. Having only been Editor-in-chief since September, I have been very impressed by how active and dedicated our reviewers and board members are and how dynamic and forward-looking Veterinary Evidence is as it matures into a key contributor to veterinary literature. None of this would be possible without your support for which I am very grateful.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document