scholarly journals Thank you reviewers- CytoJournal 2007

CytoJournal ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinod B Shidham ◽  
Barbara F Atkinson

Significant efforts, time, and resources are devoted for peer-reviewing numerous CytoJournal manuscripts. The Editorial Board of CytoJournal shares a significant proportion of this activity. Additional peers are requested to join periodically as ‘academic editors’ and reviewers to review CytoJournal manuscripts. We thank all the reviewers and academic editors for their time and efforts for completing the peer-review of CytoJournal manuscripts during 2006. The continued success of this important academic exercise depends on their continued enthusiasm to support with their highest standards. We also thank all the contributing authors for selecting CytoJournal and supporting open access initiative, which allows retention of the copyrights to their corresponding academic accomplishments.

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bård Smedsrød ◽  
Eirik Reierth ◽  
Lars Moksness ◽  
Leif Longva

Watch the VIDEO of the presentation.Journal coordinated peer reviewing, a hallmark of scholarly publishing, is also a pivotal part of other central academic processes, such as evaluation of research grant applications, and ranking of applicants for faculty/research positions. Hence, journal coordinated peer reviewing may be viewed as “the mother of academic peer reviewing”. On this background, it is astonishing that universities and other public R&D institutions take only a very limited interest in the management and policy shaping of this cornerstone of scholarly publishing.We suggest that the universities need to become more aware of the pivotal role of the peer reviewing jobs carried out by their professors and researchers. The peer reviewing should be viewed as a partial, in kind payment from the institutions involved to the journal publishers. The advantages of this are manifold: i) negotiating power that may lead to easier and quicker implementation of open access publishing and/or ii) reducing costs, in particular the unjustifiably high subscription and licensing rates set by the big commercial publishing houses; iii) better control of how scientific staff use their time for the good of the university; iv) managing a unified policy shaping of peer reviewing, reducing fraud and flaws. This will in turn increase quality of the research produced by the universities.    The EU has recently announced their goal of making all European scientific articles freely accessible by 2020. This announcement was made unanimously by the EU ministers responsible for research and innovation. The ministers have not announced what means to use in achieving their announced goal. We suggest a united approach whereby taking control of the peer review job could be an interesting road to follow. Such a unified international action among universities and grant agencies would be very beneficial in order to make the changes needed to establish peer reviewing as a truly academically based responsibility. The increasing international agreements and actions to implement open access publishing are indications that such changes are possible. By standing together universities will be able to break the economic grip that the big commercial publishing houses have on academic research.Some may argue that it is the right of each individual scientist to decide on the extent and for what journal to perform peer reviewing. However, if an employer for some reason limits the amount of time used to do peer reviewing for certain commercial publishing houses, it would not interfere with the academic freedom to do research and to choose freely where and how to publish. After all, work contracts include instructions on how to perform a certain amount of teaching, administration and research. The option of directing where to do or not to do peer review should not be very controversial.By taking control of and organizing peer reviewing universities would obtain a means to regain the academic freedom that was lost when commercial enterprises took over the society driven journals, introducing heavy paywalls. And it may facilitate a development towards an open science regime.


2021 ◽  
pp. 491-504
Author(s):  
Seth J. Schwartz

This chapter introduces readers to the open-access movement and to journals that charge authors to publish. Differences between open-access journals and traditional subscription journals are outlined in terms of sources of publisher revenue, peer-review processes, and editorial approaches. The chapter suggests that open- access journals may be best suited for papers from “hot” fields or for papers focusing on urgent social or health issues, whereas subscription journals are likely better suited for theoretical and literature-review papers. Authors are cautioned regarding “predatory” open-access journals that advance dubious claims regarding the speed of peer review and that misrepresent the qualifications of the editor or editorial board. The chapter provides guidance for authors considering submitting their work to legitimate open-access journals.


Author(s):  
Oksana Zayachkivska ◽  
◽  
Marta Kovalska ◽  
Vassyl Lonchyna ◽  
◽  
...  

Dear Reader! We express our sincere appreciation to all the authors, reviewers, members of the editorial board, and the editorial staff for their tireless contributions during these difficult years 2020-2021. The preparation of each issue of "The Proceedings of the Shevchenko Scientific Society: Medical Sciences” ensures its continuing development. The Journal is accepted by the Content Selection & Advisory Board of Scopus to the international indexing Scopus; to the international catalog of journals Ulrichsweb & Ulrichs; and to the Norsk Center for Forsknings data. As an open-access journal that undergoes peer review, the Editors have received multiple manuscripts from multiple countries. Information from the website shows that we had readers in 134 countries.


2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 001-001

It is a great pleasure to welcome you to Biointerface Research in Applied Chemistry, a new open access journal, which is dedicated to innovative, practically oriented original research on the fabrication, characterization, functionalization, and manipulation of biomaterials and nanomaterials, hybrid nanosized structures and nanocomposites, with a strong emphasis on the ecological and biomedical applications of nanosystems, new strategies for fighting antibiotic resistance and biofilms’ development in natural, medical and industrial environments, design of new synthetic compounds and the discovery of new natural bioactive compounds. The prime aim of Biointerface Research in Applied Chemistry is to publish first-class, original research articles under an open access policy with minimal fees for the authors. The quality of the published articles will be assured by a fast yet rigorous peer-review process. The editors will usually reject papers outside the scope of the journal with an immediate decision. Authors who wish to withdraw their manuscript (at any stage of the process) should contact the editorial board. Biointerface Research in Applied Chemistry is published as an online journal, distinguishing between different types of publications: reviews, which are expected to produce a coherent argument about a topic or a focused description of a field, full articles presented as comprehensive reports on original research of the highest quality and short communications, which should be concise, usually no longer than 2500 words and not intended to publish preliminary results, but an independent report representing a significant contribution to the field of interest. Short communications are also send to peer review. For reviews and full articles there will be no page restrictions in place. Our editorial policy inquires that all submitted papers should be complete in themselves and adequately supported by experimental details. We are looking forward to receiving some of your very best manuscripts for publication in Biointerface Research in Applied Chemistry and to participate to an increased international dissemination of scientific information in fully-searchable electronic formats.


Author(s):  
Hayder A. L. Mossa ◽  
◽  
Taif Alawsi ◽  

The editors of the Iraqi Journal of Embryos and Infertility Researches (IJEIR) are thankful to the huge efforts made by the reviewers in peer- reviewing the submitted manuscripts. Thanks to their efforts the second issue of the 9th volume is now available online with open access to the articles content. We are looking forward in inclusion in relevant indexing in the near future. We would like to acknowledge the reviewers for their contribution, and we wish them the greatest success. We ensured the anonymity of both reviewers and authors and followed a double-blind peer-review procedure. Our published articles are under the creative common attribution license. We strictly followed the COPE ethical code in the published studies. Our articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jadranka Stojanovski ◽  
Ivana Hebrang Grgić

Most of the journals in Croatia adopted the open access (OA) model and their content is freely accessible and available for reuse without restrictions except that attribution be given to the author(s) and journal. There are 444 Croatian scholarly, professional, popular and trade OA journals available in the national repository of OA journals Hrcak, and 217 of them use peer review process as the primary quality assurance system. The goal of our study was to investigate the peer review process used by the Croatian OA journals and the editors’ attitude towards open peer review.An online survey was sent to the Hrcak journal editors with 39 questions grouped in: journal general information, a number of submitted/rejected/accepted manuscripts and timeliness of publishing, peer review process characteristics, instructions for peer reviewers and open peer review. Responses were obtained from 152 editors (141 complete and 11 partial). All journals employ peer review process except one. The data were collected from February to July 2017.The majority of journals come from the humanities (n=50, 33%) and social sciences (n=37, 24%). Less represented are journals from the field of biomedicine (n=22, 14%), technical sciences (n=16, 11%), natural sciences (n=12, 8%), biotechnical sciences (n=10, 7%) and interdisciplinary journals (n=3, 2%). Average journal submission is 54 manuscripts per year, but there are big differences among journals: maximum submission is 550 manuscripts, and minimum just five. In average journal publishes 23 papers after the reviewers’ and editors’ acceptance. In average it takes 16 days for sending the manuscript to the reviewer, 49 days for all the reviewers to send the journal a detailed report on the manuscript, 14 days to the editors’ decision, and another 60 days for the paper to be published.External peer review process where reviewers are not members of the editorial board or employees of the journal’s parent institution was used by 86 journals (60%). Other journals use external peer review process where reviewers are not members of the editorial board but could be employees of the journal’s parent institution (n=40, 28%), and editorial peer review. Remaining 10% journals combine previous three types of the peer review. Only 20% journals use exclusively reviewers from abroad, 44% are combining international and national reviewers, and 36% journals use only reviewers from Croatia.The majority of journals provide two reviews for each manuscript, and the process is double blind. Detailed instructions for peer reviewers are provided by less than half of the journals (n=57, 40%), but ethical issues like plagiarism, conflict of interest, confidentiality etc., are neglected. Usually, a reviewer is not informed of the final decision upon the manuscript, and reviews are not shared among reviewers.Somehow surprising was the opinion of the majority of the editors that reviewers must get credit for their efforts (n=121, 85%). On the other hand, editors are not familiar with the concept of open peer review, which can be easily used for that purpose. Some editors believe that open peer review is related to the identity disclosure: both authors’ and reviewers’ (n=35, 25%), reviewers’ (n=27, 19%), and authors’ identity (n=14, 10%). For many editors open peer review implies publicly available reviews (n=65, 36%) and authors’ responses (n=46, 33%). Open peer review is an unknown concept for some editors (n=32, 23%).In spite of all criticism traditional peer review is predominant in Croatian OA journals. Our findings show that traditional peer review is still the preferred review mechanism for the majority of journals in the study.


Author(s):  
Biju Hameed ◽  
Charles Newton

The Journal of the International Child Neurology Association (JICNA), was officially launched in February 2015 although the proceedings of the 13th International Child Neurology Congress in 2014 was, published under the platform in the previous year. The JICNA editorial team was announced, and constituted of members of the International Child Neurology Association (ICNA) executive board with representation from all geographical regions and across all major child neurology disciplines. The launch of JICNA represented a major milestone in the history of the association, founded in 1973 with the goal of promoting education and research in child neurology worldwide. Open access publishing in child neurology hardly existed before, and JICNA thus became the first fully open access multidisciplinary peer reviewed ejournal in child neurology. JICNA has steadily progressed over its initial years and now in its 7th year, is poised to establish itself as a major open access platform for disseminating scientific research in child neurology. Closely integrated with its parent organization the ICNA and ICNApedia, the association’s flagship knowledge environment platform, JICNA editorial policy is aimed at both facilitating access to and disseminating research, particularly from resource poor settings. As part of this remit, JICNA adopts the association's consensus position on scientific issues treated within its published articles. The special articles published from the ICNA Advocacy Committee on genetic testing for rare disorders [1] and other articles in the pipeline on “vaccination against measles” and “stem cell therapy in neurological disorders” reflect the journal’s ethos. The ongoing global pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus (SARS-Cov2) and its disease (COVID-19) has highlighted more than ever the importance and need for open science. The dissemination of scientific research following the outbreak has no doubt brought to attention the significant changes that have occured in the field of scientific publishing, with how research is communicated and how researchers engage, share and contribute. The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a spate of preprint articles, which, while potentially life-saving, also risk dissemination of poor-quality work. While we are not against such author-led rapid publication workflows, we would advise caution against its potential risks. The pandemic again has shown that timely access of researchers to information and knowledge is key to fighting global diseases and problems that threaten humanity. It remains a sad truth that researchers across the world remain cut off from a vast body of information and knowledge that ought to have been readily accessible by them. The scientific community has long been aware of the hindrance of traditional publishing models to the dissemination of scientific research. Research can only flourish through collaboration, and it is imperative that research is made more visible by breaking cost, language and geographic barriers. Although governments, major universities and funders, such as Harvard University and the Wellcome Trust, have long acknowledged and taken steps to promote this, urging their academics to consider open access venues for publishing their work, there still remains much progress to be made. The four main factors considered by authors in deciding their choice of journal are visibility, cost, prestige and speed. “Brand-name” journals are still favoured by authors to promote their academic career prospects. While an open-access publishing model in itself is not a hindrance to a journal’s success, it is acknowledged that JICNA should gain an impact factor and improve its visibility further. JICNA has now been consistently publishing, following a stringent peer review, original articles, trial reports, case studies and timely reviews, since its inception in 2015. JICNA is currently indexed in Google Scholar, CrossRef and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and will, this year, be making a submission to PubMed Central® & MEDLINE®. The journal also subscribes to robust archiving systems including CLOCKSS & PORTICO. In the current environment, where the open access publishing model is at danger of being exploited by predatory publishers with lax editorial policies and peer-reviews risk perpetuating bad research, a journal like JICNA certainly assumes greater significance. The ICNA is committed to maintaining JICNA free of cost to its readers, with an expedited publication workflow while ensuring strict peer-review standards. The JICNA editorial board is extremely thankful to all the peer reviewers and members of the editorial board, without whose support this would not have been possible. JICNA follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines and is committed to upholding standards of ethical behaviour at all stages of the publication process. The journal is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, permitting any user to “distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work,” provided that they credit the original authors in all cases, ensuring the copyright remaining with the main author. We would like to once again thank all authors, peer-reviewers and the editorial board for their valuable contributions to the success of the journal. We are looking to further expand our panel of reviewers and editorial board from across the various subspecialties in child neurology.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 348
Author(s):  
Jovan Shopovski ◽  
Dejan Marolov

With their broad scope, high publishing volume, a peer review process based on the scientific soundness of the content, and an open access model, mega journals have become an important part of scholarly publishing.The main aim of this paper is to determine the most important factor that influenced researchers’ decisions to submit their academic work to these type of journal. To this end, an online survey has been disseminated from November 2016 to August 2017, targeting the corresponding authors of the European Scientific Journal, ESJ. Data from 413 corresponding authors was collected.The focus was mainly on how they discover the journal and what led them to submit a paper to the journal. However, questions concerning their satisfaction with the peer review procedure were also part of the survey.The results have shown that a recommendation of a colleague is not only the main channel through which authors found out about the journal, but is also the major reason they decided to submit their paper to a mega-journal. Furthermore, the quality of the editorial board of the journal, the strong portfolio of papers and the open access concept are also significant factors in encouraging submission to a mega-journal. A majority of the respondents are satisfied with the communication and peer review procedure of the mega-journal, which might encourage new submissions in the future.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Letícia Nunes Campos ◽  
Angela Theresa Zuffo Yabrude ◽  
Samantha Sartore Duque Estrada Medeiros ◽  
Taiane do Socorro Silva Natividade ◽  
Bárbara Okabaiasse Luizeti ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Peer review plays a pivotal role in optimizing articles’ quality. However, in a context of poor methodological publications and unreliable data, it is questionable which strategies to invest in to improve peer reviewing. An excellent start is by enhancing diversity through inclusion of undergraduate students to reviewers. We aim to report the peer reviewing policies, procedures, and practices of a medical student-led journal editorial board in 2020, detailing the challenges and the role of students in building capacity in peer review. Methods: Through validated online training courses and peer education methodology, the students built capacity regarding the relevance of peer review, its models, structure, and publication process. The journal peer-reviewing was blinded for authors and reviewers, pursuing impartiality and minimization of identification bias. To add standardization to the submission and review processes, guidelines for authors and reviewers were developed, based on journals’ recommendations, and reporting guidelines. Results: The journal had 254 submitted manuscripts from all five Brazilian geographic regions during the second semester of 2020, a considerable increase compared to the 72 submissions in the previous edition. After reviewing, 50 articles were accepted to the Brazilian Medical Students’ 7th edition, demanding minor or major corrections.Discussion: Peer review contributes to the construction of content, standing for evidence-based medicine. Besides, it improves ethical, communication, and critical appraisal abilities, also desirable in the academic and professional spheres. Among the benefits and limitations of this medical students' peer review process, there is an interesting strategy to be studied and further promoted.


Author(s):  
Angelina Gorbunova ◽  
Ivan Zassoursky ◽  
Nataliia Trishchenko

The article deals with open peer reviewing as a new way of verifying results of researches in the scientific sector of digital media. The technological modernization of scientific publishers provides for solving some of the problems of the traditional peer reviewing. This explains the topicality of the study. The authors analyzed ten platforms with open peer review that are based in Europe, the USA and Canada. According to the results, a formally similar open peer review process may vary depending on the scope of authority a scientific community has, reviewers’ identification, authors’ opportunities to propose an expert, the degree of review openness, posting the revised versions, and involvement of the editorial board if any. The tools that the platforms use to encourage the scientific community to participate in commenting and reviewing the publications also matter. One of the key advantages of open peer reviewing is reducing the time required for publishing an article, which is crucial for some scientific fields.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document