Thank you to our 2019 peer review panel

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 90-90
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Important Work ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Review Panel ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Time Out ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
First Time

The following people have generously taken time out of their demanding work and personal schedules to volunteer as peer reviewers for International Paramedic Practice. For the first time, we are publishing a list of our peer review panel for the year as a small way of offering our sincere grattitude for the extremely important work they do, without which we could not produce high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed content for our readers every quarter. Our peer reviewers are highly valued members of our editorial team. We are grateful for the time, energy, expert knowledge and insight that goes into their constructive comments, which improve the research and writing of our authors, and which help us to publish only those articles that are up to standard and that contribute in some meaningful way to the existing literature.

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.

scholarly journals Introducing the New Editorial Team at the Journal of Experimental Political Science

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux ◽  
Rick Wilson ◽  
Cheryl Boudreau ◽  
Sarah Bush ◽  
Jennifer Jerit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Experimental Research ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Important Work ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Editorial Assistant ◽  
Healthy State ◽  
Impossible Task

We are excited and honored to be the editorial team for JEPS. We are indebted to Eric Dickson for his efforts as the journal's previous editor. He set a high bar for JEPS as an outlet for high quality experimental research. Lucky for us, the healthy state of experimental research means that we will continue to have a deep pool of well-crafted and important work. We also thank Nick Haas, who deftly guided us through the transition as Editorial Assistant. Without his help, it would have been a near impossible task to get up to speed.

scholarly journals Rejection rate and reasons for rejection after peer review: a case study of a Russian economics journal

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evgueniya A Balyakina ◽  
Ludmila A Kriventsova
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Rejection Rate ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Review Reports

 Background:  Peer review remains the only way of filtering and improving research. However, there are few studies of peer review based on the contents of review reports, because access to these reports is limited. Objectives: To measure the rejection rate and to investigate the reasons for rejection after peer-review in a specialized scientific journal.  Methods:  We considered the manuscripts submitted to a Russian journal, namely ‘Economy of Region’ (Rus Экономика региона), from 2016 to 2018, and analysed the double-blind review reports related to rejected submissions in qualitative and quantitative terms including descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 1653 submissions from 2016 to 2018, 324 (20%) were published, giving an average rejection rate of 80%. Content analysis of reviewer reports showed five categories of shortcomings in the manuscripts: breaches of publication ethics, mismatch with the journal’s research area, weak research reporting (a major group, which accounted for 66%of the total); lack of novelty, and design errors. We identified two major problems in the peer-review process that require editorial correction: in 36% of the cases, the authors did not send the revised version of the manuscript to the journal after receiving editorial comments and in 30% of the cases, the reviewers made contradictory recommendations. Conclusions: To obtain a more balanced evaluation from experts and to avoid paper losses the editorial team should revise the journal’s instructions to authors, its guide to reviewers, and the form of the reviewer’s report by indicating the weightings assigned to the different criteria and by describing in detail the criteria for a good paper.

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2126 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
High Similarity ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Review Form ◽  
Two Stages ◽  
Content Review

All conference organizers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: The ICoPIs 2021 manuscripts were reviewed using double-blind peer review. One reviewer reviewed one manuscript. The number of papers submitted was 62 articles. The number of ICoPIs 2021 reviewers were 9 people. The reviewing processes were conducted via email or OCS. The manuscripts in ICoPIs 2021 have been through two stages of review. The first review stage involved three steps. First, manuscripts were distributed to the 10 reviewers. Second, the ICoPIs team checked the similarity of the manuscript. Third, the reviewed manuscripts consisting of the reviewer’s detailed comments were returned to the authors, along with the review summary form and the similarity check results. The authors were requested to return the revision of their papers within a certain period of time. In the second review stage, the editorial team scrutinized the revised manuscripts with the summary review form and the similarity percentage. If the revision has followed the comments and suggestions from reviewers and the limitation of similarity, the manuscript would be forwarded for language and template check. • Conference submission management system: OCS (https://fisika.fkip.untad.ac.id/icopis/) • The number of submissions received: There were 62 articles submitted to the ICoPIs 2021 • The number of submissions sent for review: There were 56 articles reviewed by the reviewers of the ICoPIs 2021 • The number of submissions accepted: There were 37 articles accepted for recommendation/publication to JPCS IOP Publishing. • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 59.68% • The average number of reviews per paper: One article was reviewed 4 times; twice for content review and a similarity check, once for language and once more for the template. • The total number of reviewers involved: There were 24 reviewers involved, consisting of 9 content reviewers, 10 editors (review content and templates), and 5 language reviewers. • Any additional info on the review process: While the ICoPIs team waited for the manuscripts from the reviewers, we checked the similarity of the papers. We sent three documents to the authors for the first review stage, including the reviewed manuscript, the summary of the review form, and the result of a similarity check. The authors sent the revised article along with the similarity check (maximum 20%). The manuscripts entered the second review stage. When a manuscript has followed the comments and suggestions from reviewers and was considered suitable for publication, the manuscript then proceeded to the editors for the template and language check. We did a similarity check once more during this phase but only for the manuscript with a high similarity percentage in the first review stage. So, one manuscript has been through a similarity check 2 to 3 times. • Contact person for queries: +628975586104 (Misbah) Universitas Lambung Mangkurat [email protected]

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.

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration Form Guidance

2021 ◽  
Vol 918 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Full Paper ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Conference Series ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Galley Proof

On the following page you will find the declaration form. • Please answer each question. • You should submit the form along with the rest of your submission files. • The deadline is the submission date written in your publishing agreement. All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. We will published the information you provide as part of your proceedings. Peer review declaration 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: Double-blind The 2nd International Symposium on Arboriculture in the Tropics: Trees and Human Health (The 2nd ISATrop2021) Editorial team used a double-blind review, where both the reviewer (scientific committee) and author identities were concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Only the editor knows the name of this reviewer and author. The list of Scientific committees has been determined before the symposium takes place and was ratified in the form of a Letter of Assignment. • Conference submission management system: The registration mechanism for the 2nd ISATrop2021 for participants, both non-presenters and oral presenters was carried out via online submission with the form provided on the arboriculture website ( https://arborikultur.ipb.ac.id/registration/ ). Abstracts for presenters are also uploaded when filling out the registration form. Speakers and participants can monitor and communicate with symposium organizers via email [email protected] and WhatsApp with contact person Ulfa Adzkia, S.Hut, M.Si as the symposium secretary (+62 822 6245 4154). Participants who have presented their papers at the 2nd ISATrop2021 on 21-22 June 2021, can then submit full papers via email [email protected] to the 2nd ISATrop2021 Editorial Team. • Number of submissions received: 62 • Number of submissions sent for review: 53 • Number of submissions accepted: 53 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 85.48% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 papers • Total number of reviewers involved: 27 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: - Full papers that have been received by the 2nd ISATrop2021 Editorial Team via email [email protected] from the participants have been going through a peer review mechanism as follows: 1. The Editor Team allocates 1-3 papers to the 2nd ISATrop2021 Scientific Committees (reviewers). 2. Each full paper along with the review form was sent to each reviewer via email [email protected]. 3. The review and revision process were continued until the full paper is declared “Accepted by No Revision” by the reviewer. 4. Full Paper that has been Accepted by Revision, then processed for plagiarism checking by TURNITIN, proofread checking by the proofreader team, and layout checking by the layout team. 5. While waiting for the proof read and layout check results, the author was asked to submit a “Statement of Originality form” via email. The form template was provided by the editor team. 6. The results of the proofread and layout in the form of “Galley Proof Draft” were then sent back to the author via email. 7. Galley Proof Draft that has been checked and corrected by the author, then sent back to the editor team via email. 8. The final layout team then rechecks the full paper to ensure that the format is in accordance with the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science format. • Contact person for queries: Name : Fifi Gus Dwiyanti Affiliation: Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, IPB University Email : [email protected]

The value(s) of editorial peer review

2006 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 121-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria E. Gonzalez
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Invisible Work ◽  
The Status ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Prestige

PurposeTo explore the status, interests, and intentions of peer reviewers and how editors enlist and muster these factors to enhance the prestige of a scholarly publication.Design/methodology/approachCase study: use of a 30‐year accumulation of editorial office records of one scholarly journal to analyze the contents of peer review comments and correspondence; direct quotes highlight key themes.FindingsPeer reviewers labor to obtain more than the certification, authentication, and quality of individual works. The volume and variety of commentary generated by a double‐blind peer review process reveal concerns behind reviewer comments to authors and effects over time.Research limitations/implicationsThe study centers on one journal, Libraries & Culture, a publication committed to the specialized, interdisciplinary research about the history of libraries and the collection of cultural records.Originality/valueThe strategic nature of the administration and management of the invisible work of peer reviewers becomes more apparent. The interests and intentions of peer reviewers surface in commentary intended only for authors. Commentary relates to a variety of themes including personal interests, pedagogical and disciplinary objectives, field expansion agendas as well as the prestige of the publication. These themes suggest peer review as a potentially effective guiding mechanism for long‐term endeavors that benefit author, reviewer, and editor as interrelated players in arenas where distinction is at stake.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 1197 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Materials Science ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Manuscript Submission ◽  
Main Concern ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Materials Science And Engineering ◽  
Content Review

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 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: Double-blind The conference papers were double-blind reviewed, where the identity of both author and reviewer on the papers will be hidden. The process is started by manuscript submission to EasyChair- web-based conference management software system. The editorial team then doing plagiarism check using DrillBit plagiarism software on submitted papers. The plagiarism process is under no-repository mode. If the plagiarism result exceeds 10%, the paper will be returned to the author for revision and request for new submission. For papers passed the similarity checks, the editorial member will then assign the papers to two reviewers for topic-related content review within designated time limits. All reviewers will have access link to the papers to evaluate and judge substantial indicators, such as: abstract sufficiently informative; clarity in the presentation of findings; methodology appropriate to study; results or conclusion supported by data analysis; and originality/novelty of finding. Clarity of figures and texts are also the main concern. The reviewers can also write their constructive critics directly in the EasyChair and put their judgement for the papers to be: (1) accepted and continued for camera-ready version, (2) accepted with minor revision, (3) accepted with major revision, or (4) rejected. Editors will notify all authors about the review results by email. • Number of submissions received: 250 papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 210 papers • Number of submissions accepted: 115 papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 210 / 250 x 100 = 46% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 reviews • Total number of reviewers involved: 25 reviewers Address: Dr. Veerendrakumar C Khed (5894), Professor, Organizing Secretary ICACE-2021 Research Group Head (Structural Engg) Department of Civil Engineering, K L Deemed to be UNIVERSITY,Guntur. Phone: +91 9480374757, Mail: [email protected]

scholarly journals Research Ideas and Outcomes journal (R.I.O.): A novel way to make science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir Hachani
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Atmospheric Chemistry ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
New Era ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
The Cold War

Watch the VIDEO here.Peer review has been a cornerstone of science since the first scientific journals started in the middle of 17th century. It has since evolved from a case by case and non standardized process to a more regulated and organized undertaking. The period at which peer review entered its new phase is the Second World War and the extraordinary boom of scientific output that resulted from the cold war. All this output had to have a receptacle (scientific journals) but also had to be selected due to the big amount of data produced. That is when peer review became unanimously and, to some extent, uniformly implemented. It also became the unavoidable door leading to a number of advantages all researchers are looking for (promotions, funding, prize, etc.).That’s when the human component intervened and made the process a rather biased process subject to all kinds of critics. One of the main (if not the main) problem is the secrecy in which the process is undertaken and that has led to all kind of iniquitous, unjust and  sometimes bizarre decisions. The process tried to inject some kind of openness (going from blind to double blind peer reviewing for example) with little results. The 90’s of the last century saw the Internet slowly becoming more and more used in everyday life and, more importantly, in the scientific and academic research. With all the problems besetting peer review ,Internet’s openness seemed as the best cure to all the grievance peer review elicited. Among the most revolutionary experiences, Faculty of 1000 (F 1000), Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (A.C.P.), Journal of Medical Internet Research (J.M.I.R.), British Medical Journal? Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence ( ETAI) and Biology Direct have introduced new ways to undertake peer review that have somehow alleviated the numerous critics. With Research Ideas Outcomes (RIO), the process enters a new era of openness as its two stages are completely open: the pre submission peer review (part 1) in which the submitter is reviewed before submission by a colleague and could even ask colleagues to help write his proposal and then  open post-publication peer-review (part 2) in which the process is even more open as authors could decide what reviews are published, when and also decide to ask for an in house classic type of review done exclusively by peer reviewers from RIO or let the whole community implement a Post Publication Peer Review that could putatively last as long as the article is on the system. All the process is open in all its steps and allows novelty, among others, to recognize namely reviewers’ work, a task they have so far anonymously and without any reward of any kind. This proposal will explain in details the process and try to understand the (r)evolution this kind of process introduces to the making of science through transparency in a stage of science that has been known to be utterly secretive.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document