scholarly journals Navigating the Publication Process: An ASABE Journals’ Perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (5) ◽  
pp. 1147-1153
Author(s):  
Garey A. Fox ◽  
Kyle R. Douglas-Mankin ◽  
Kasiviswanathan Muthukumarappan ◽  
Jun Zhu ◽  
Joseph C. Walker
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Subject Matter Experts ◽  
Review Time ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Quality Review

Abstract. HighlightsASABE journals publish impactful research in multiple article types in addition to research articles. Prospective authors should consider a journal’s peer-review quality, readership, metrics, and page charges. An article’s impact should be measured based on citations instead of predicted based on the journal’s impact factor. Always recommend subject matter experts as reviewers so that a manuscript can benefit from their suggestions. Publishing in ASABE journals offers opportunities for contributing to and being recognized by the profession. Keywords: Impact factor, Page charges, Peer-reviewed journals, Review quality, Review time

scholarly journals Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula CABEZAS Del FIERRO ◽  
Omar SABAJ MERUANE ◽  
Germán VARAS ESPINOZA ◽  
Valeria GONZÁLEZ HERRERA
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Average Length ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Review Time ◽  
Feedback Quality ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract The value of scientific knowledge is highly dependent on the quality of the process used to produce it, namely, the quality of the peer-review process. This process is a pivotal part of science as it works both to legitimize and improve the work of the scientific community. In this context, the present study investigated the relationship between review time, length, and feedback quality of review reports in the peer-review process of research articles. For this purpose, the review time of 313 referee reports from three Chilean international journals were recorded. Feedback quality was determined estimating the rate of direct requests by the total number of comments in each report. Number of words was used to describe the average length in the sample. Results showed that average time and length have little variation across review reports, irrespective of their quality. Low quality reports tended to take longer to reach the editor, so neither time nor length were related to feedback quality. This suggests that referees mostly describe, criticize, or praise the content of the article instead of making useful and direct comments to help authors improve their manuscripts.

scholarly journals A CORPUS-BASED INVESTIGATION OF MOVES IN ARGUMENT STAGE OF ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY

2021 ◽  
pp. 199-204
Author(s):  
Anita Kanestion ◽  
Manvender Kaur Sarjit Singh
Keyword(s):  
University Students ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Corpus Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
Subject Matter Experts ◽  
Rhetorical Structure ◽  
Argumentative Essays ◽  
Novice Writers

Genre analysis has been frequently employed in Malaysia to analyse undergraduate and postgraduate target discourse, particularly research articles and abstracts. On the other hand, just a few studies have been done on argumentative essays written by pre-university students taking the Malaysian University English Test (MUET). The goal of this study is to examine rhetorical moves of the argument stage in 60 argumentative essays. The major instrument utilised to assess the rhetorical structure in the assembled essays was a compiled representative corpus of argumentative essays, COMWArE. The identification of rhetorical moves was investigated using BCU approach, which is aided by a computer-assisted corpus analysis (CACA). In addition, two subject matter experts were interviewed in order to gain insider perspectives. The analysis reveals that the argument stage in argumentative essays consists of three moves and five steps. The findings of the study lend itself to providing a representative template of rhetorical organisation for organising argument stage in producing an argumentative essay. Pedagogically, this rhetorical structure is useful particularly to novice writers to better understand how argument stage is produced.

scholarly journals Introduction 3-1

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. i-iii
Author(s):  
Syed Sami Raza
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities

The Review of Human Rights has completed its third year of successful publication process. We received more than two-dozen research articles out of which only five could make it through the review process. The acceptance rate accordingly has reached to 18.5%, which means that its quality considerations are quite high. Our indexing and abstracting has expanded, so has our peer review board. Many renowned scholars in the fields of social sciences and humanities are now connected with us.

Further Things I Have Learned … Selected Reflections about Publishing in Accounting Education

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 67-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E. Stout
Keyword(s):  
Publishing Research ◽  
Accounting Education ◽  
The Self ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Instructional Resources ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Education Literature

ABSTRACT This paper extends the self-reflections presented earlier in Stout (2016) to include some of the things I learned over the years in terms of publishing in accounting education. I offer these new reflections from the perspective of my experience over many years as an author, editor, and consumer of accounting education literature. I provide comments related to publishing instructional resources in accounting education (including educational cases) and to publishing research articles. I also offer general comments regarding publishing in accounting education, including comments as to the suitability (defensibility) of these scholarly pursuits. The manuscript complements other recent papers in the area by focusing more narrowly on the publication process in accounting education. The contents of this paper may be of interest to those wishing to enhance their publication potential in the field of accounting education.

scholarly journals Peer review practices by medical imaging journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas C. Kwee ◽  
Hugo J. A. Adams ◽  
Robert M. Kwee
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Medical Imaging ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Manuscript Submission ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Review Model ◽  
Double Blinded

Abstract Objective To investigate peer review practices by medical imaging journals. Methods Journals in the category "radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging" of the 2018 Journal Citation Reports were included. Results Of 119 included journals, 62 (52.1%) used single-blinded peer review, 49 (41.2%) used double-blinded peer review, two (1.7%) used open peer review and one (0.8%) used both single-blinded and double-blinded peer reviews, while the peer review model of five journals (4.2%) remained unclear. The use of single-blinded peer review was significantly associated with a journal’s impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.218, P = 0.022). On subgroup analysis, only subspecialty medical imaging journals had a significant association between the use of single-blinded peer review and a journal’s impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.354, P = 0.025). Forty-eight journals (40.3%) had a reviewer preference option, 48 journals (40.3%) did not have a reviewer recommendation option, and 23 journals (19.3%) obliged authors to indicate reviewers on their manuscript submission systems. Sixty-four journals (53.8%) did not provide an explicit option on their manuscript submission Web site to indicate nonpreferred reviewers, whereas 55 (46.2%) did. There were no significant associations between the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers and a journal’s impact factor. Conclusion Single-blinded peer review and the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers are frequently employed by medical imaging journals. Single-blinded review is (weakly) associated with a higher impact factor, also for subspecialty journals. The option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers is evenly distributed among journals, regardless of impact factor.

Development of an Instrument for Assessing Trauma Team Performance

2007 ◽  
Vol 51 (11) ◽  
pp. 678-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Kuenzle Haake ◽  
Yan Xiao ◽  
Colin Mackenzie ◽  
F. Jacob Seagull ◽  
Thomas Grissom ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Team Performance ◽  
Performance Feedback ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Trauma Team ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Initial Assessment ◽  
Subject Matter Experts ◽  
Real Patient ◽  
Widespread Application

Teamwork training is critical for patient safety and has been advocated for widespread application in many settings. A key challenge for evaluating teamwork training is measurement. Despite much effort, the team performance instruments reported thus far suffer from a variety shortcomings that prevent their wide application in assessing teams in real settings. Based on review of video recorded trauma team activities in real patient care, a multi-disciplinary research team developed an instrument based on observable behaviors (UMTOP). A set of video clips were reviewed by 6 subject matter experts who were requested to provide “descriptors” about the observed team activities. The 167 collated descriptors were combined to a reduced list, which was then sent to the subject matter experts for revision. The revised list was then categorized into 5 areas of team performance (task and clinical performance, leadership organization, teamwork organization, social environment, sterile precaution). UMTOP was developed to be a tradeoff among four criteria: ease of use, reliability, usefulness for team performance feedback, and speed of scoring. An initial assessment of reliability was conducted with surgeon and nursing reviewers.

Peer Review Metrics and their influence on the Journal Impact

2021 ◽  
pp. 016555152110597
Author(s):  
Sumeer Gul ◽  
Aasif Ahmad Mir ◽  
Sheikh Shueb ◽  
Nahida Tun Nisa ◽  
Salma Nisar
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Early Access ◽  
Editorial Decision ◽  
Article Influence Score ◽  
Impact Data ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Immediacy Index ◽  
Article Influence

The manuscript processing timeline, a necessary facet of the publishing process, varies from journal to journal, and its influence on the journal impact needs to be studied. The current research looks into the correlation between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ (submission to first editorial decision; submission to first post-review decision and submission to accept) and the ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor; 5-year Impact Factor; Immediacy Index; Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score). The data related to ‘Peer Review Metrics’ (submission to first editorial decision; submission to first post-review decision and submission to accept) and ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor; 5-year Impact Factor; Immediacy Index; Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score) were downloaded from the ‘Nature Research’ journals website https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/about/journal-metrics . Accordingly, correlations were drawn between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ and the ‘Journal Impact Data’. If the time from ‘submission to first editorial decision’ decreases, the ‘Journal Impact Data’ increases and vice versa. However, an increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to first editorial decision’ does not affect the ‘Eigenfactor Score’ of the journal and vice versa. An increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to first post-review decision’ does not affect any ‘Journal Impact Data’ and vice versa. If the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ increases, the ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor, 5-year Impact Factor, Immediacy Index and Article Influence Score) also increases, and if the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ decreases, so will the ‘Journal Impact Data’. However, an increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ does not affect the ‘Eigenfactor Score’ of the journal and vice versa. The study will act as a ready reference tool for the scholars to select the most appropriate submitting platforms for their scholarly endeavours. Furthermore, the performance and evaluative indicators responsible for a journal’s overall research performance can also be understood from a micro-analytical view, which will help the researchers select appropriate journals for their future scholarly submissions. Lengthy publication timelines are a big problem for the researchers because they are not able to get the credit for their research on time. Since the study validates a relationship between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ and ‘Journal Impact Data’, the findings will be of great help in making an appropriate journal’s choice. The study can be an eye opener for the journal administrators who vocalise a speed-up publication process by enhancing certain areas of publication timeline. The study is the first of its kind that correlates the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ of the journals and the ‘Journal Impact Data’. The study’s findings are limited to the data retrieved from the ‘Nature Research’ journals and cannot be generalised to the full score of journals. The study can be extended across other publishers to generalise the findings. Even the articles’ early access availability concerning ‘Peer Review Metrics’ of the journals and the ‘Journal Impact Data’ can be studied.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document