scholarly journals A Note from the President-Elect

1992 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 3-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zvi Griliches
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
National Science Foundation ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Public Discussion ◽  
National Science ◽  
Economics Profession ◽  
President Elect ◽  
Conference Committee

A few months ago, Congress overruled the peer review process of the National Science Foundation. A congressional aide looked over the list of NSF grants, decided that 31 of them had titles unworthy of funding, and a conference committee voted on May 21 to cut off those grants. The cuts were made without hearings, without due process, and without public discussion. This note is to let the economics profession know what happened.

scholarly journals Preface: 3rd International Conference on Innovations in Economic Management and Social Science (IEMSS 2021)

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. I
Author(s):  
Shenliang Qian ◽  
Joyce Springhall
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Economic Management ◽  
Research Results ◽  
International Conference ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
Conference Committee

The organizing committee of IEMSS 2021 is proud to present the proceedings of the 2021 3rd International Conference on Innovations in Economic Management and Social Science, held in Hohhot, China during November 27-28, 2021.   IEMSS 2021 aims to bring together researchers, scientists, engineers, and scholar students to exchange and share their experience, new ideas, and research results about all aspects of innovations in economic management and social science, and discuss the practical challenges encountered and the solutions adopted.   IEMSS 2021 received more than 50 manuscripts, and less than 40 submissions have been accepted by our reviewers. By submitting a paper to IEMSS 2021, the authors agreed to the review process and understood that papers would undergo a peer-review process. Manuscripts were reviewed by appropriately qualified experts in the field selected by the conference committee, who took detailed comments and-if the submission was accepted-the authors would submit a revised version that took into account this feedback.   Hopefully, all participants and other interested readers will benefit scientifically from the proceedings and also find it stimulating in the process.   With warmest regards,   IEMSS Conference Organizing Committees Hohhot, China

Undergraduate and Graduate Design Projects

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilbert B. Devey
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
National Science Foundation ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Biochemical Engineering ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
National Science ◽  
Design Projects ◽  
Research And Education

Abstract The National Science Foundation (MSF) was established in 1950 as an Independent Agency of the Federal Government with the broad mission to promote and advance scientific progress in the U.S. This is accomplished primarily by supporting research and education in all disciplines of the natural and social sciences, mathematics, and engineering. Support is provided principally in the form of grants awarded on a competitive basis under a rigorous peer review process; NSF does not conduct research itself. In 1992, NSF defined a project eligible for support as bioengineering research as one “...with diagnosis or treatment-related goals, that applies engineering principles to problems in biology and medicine while advancing engineering knowledge is eligible for support. Bioengineering research to aid persons with disabilities is also eligible”.1 Bioengineering at NSF has two defined programs: 1 - “Biochemical Engineering”, and 2 - a two-component activity “Biomedical Engineering” (BME) and “Research to Aid Persons with Disabilities” (RAPD). Undergraduate and Graduate Design Projects is part of the RAPD component of the program.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2120 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Chemical Engineering ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Electronic Engineering ◽  
Overall Evaluation ◽  
Language Objectives ◽  
Conference Committee ◽  
Scientific Standards

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series 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 the articles of 15th EURECA Conference 2021 followed the single-blind peer review process. The reviewers were aware of the authors’ identity but not vice versa. • Conference submission management system: Communications between author and the conference committee was done through Easychair (https://easychair.org/cfp/15thEureca2021) or email ([email protected]). Authors submit the manuscript and receive feedbacks from reviewers through Easychair. Reviewers have also provided their comments and feedback, retrieving manuscript or revised manuscript through Easychair platform. • Number of submissions received: 135 • Number of submissions sent for review: 135 • Number of submissions accepted: 43 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 98.5% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 59 • Any additional info on review process: In the review process, two reviewers from the same field were appointed to review the paper. The reviewers are from the background of Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Computing and IT. Reviewers can retrieve the manuscript and provide their feedback through Easychair platform. Feedback and comments from reviewers were sent back to the authors within 2 weeks through Easychair. The criteria in review include organization of paper and usage of language, objectives, theoretical framework, methodology, reported outcome and data analysis, educational or field significance, and use of relevant literature citations. An overall evaluation ranging from 1. Accept, 2. Accept with minor revision, 3. Conditional Accept with major revision, and 4. Reject was recommended by the reviewer. Based on the suggestions by reviewers, decision was then made and conveyed to the authors by the Secretariat team. The revised manuscript was then verified by the reviewers and Secretariat team for their final recommendation for submission. Similarity check has been carried out by using Turnitin software for all submissions. • Contact person for queries: Name : Dr. Oh Kai Siang Affiliation: Taylor’s University Email : [email protected]

Getting Involved in the Peer Review Process

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenya Malcolm ◽  
Allison Groenendyk ◽  
Mary Cwik ◽  
Alisa Beyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

Reference Conundrum: The Broad Definition of Peer-Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Fullerton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
The Core ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Reference Interactions ◽  
Definition Of

For years, the gold-standard in academic publishing has been the peer-review process, and for the most part, peer-review remains a safeguard to authors publishing intentionally biased, misleading, and inaccurate information. Its purpose is to hold researchers accountable to the publishing standards of that field, including proper methodology, accurate literature reviews, etc. This presentation will establish the core tenants of peer-review, discuss if certain types of publications should be able to qualify as such, offer possible solutions, and discuss how this affects a librarian's reference interactions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document