A Model of the Academic Review Process with Informed Authors

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 865-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ofer H. Azar
Keyword(s):  
Research Productivity ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Noisy Signal ◽  
Average Quality ◽  
Academic Review ◽  
Journal Policies

Abstract Research on the academic review process may help to improve research productivity. The article presents a model of the review process in a top journal, in which authors know their paper’s quality whereas referees obtain a noisy signal about quality. Increased signal noisiness, lower submission costs and more published papers all reduce the average quality of published papers in the journal. The model allows analyzing how the submission cost, the accuracy of referees and the number of published papers affect additional equilibrium characteristics. Implications of the model for journal policies are also discussed.

Kualitas Hidup Pasien Tuberkulosis Paru yang Mengalami Stigma Diri (Quality of Life Pulmonary Tuberculosis Patients With Self Stigma))

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 17-27
Author(s):  
Yunita Sari
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Pulmonary Tuberculosis ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Negative Influence ◽  
Questionnaire Data ◽  
Average Quality ◽  
Tuberculosis Patients ◽  
Pulmonary Tb ◽  
Life Score

Pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) is a chronic disease that can bring about the sufferer's self-stigma and also affect his quality of life. A number of studies report that living with TB has a negative influence on the quality of life of sufferers even with or without self-stigma. The purpose of this study was to identify the quality of life of TB patients who experienced self-stigma. This research is a descriptive study, sample were 31 pulmonary TB patients. Data was collected using a questionnaire. Data analyzed by using frequency distribution and percentage. The researcher first screened TB patients who experienced self-stigma. The results showed that 25 people (80.64%) respondents experienced mild self-stigma. A total of 9 respondents (36%) had a quality of life score in the good category and as many as 16 respondents (64%) had enough category with an average quality of life score is 56.57. While respondents who had moderate self-stigma were 6 people (19.36%) with a good quality of life score was 1 person (16.67%) and enough category quality of life score were 5 people (83.33%) with an average quality of life score is 49.92.

ACADEMY Journal 7(9), 2018

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liudmila Vyacheslavovna Fomina ◽  
Саидова Феруза Бахтияровна
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Open File ◽  
Specific Research ◽  
Blind Review

"Journal of the Academy" isan international,peerreviewedmonthly journal. It is dedicated tothe publication of original scientific articles invarious academic disciplines.Articles that may be of interest to a wide rangeof researchers, welcome, and are not limited tothose who work on specific research subjects."Journal of the Academy" has an open file,according to which the published articles areavailable immediately after its publication, withthe exception of the embargo.ExpertiseThe magazine has a blind review process. Allarticles will initially be evaluated by the editor tomatch the magazine. The manuscripts that areconsidered suitable, are usually sent at leasttwo independent experts to evaluate thescientific quality of the article. The editor isresponsible for the final decision on whether toaccept or reject the article. Editor's decision isfinal.

Evaluating quality of science in CGIAR research programs: Use of bibliometrics

2021 ◽  
pp. 003072702110242
Author(s):  
Max Rünzel ◽  
Paolo Sarfatti ◽  
Svetlana Negroustoueva
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Monitoring And Evaluation ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Practical Utilization ◽  
Research Programs ◽  
First Time ◽  
Quality Of Research

When evaluating Quality of Science (QoS) in the context of development initiatives, it is essential to define adequate criteria. The objective of this perspective paper is to show how altmetric and bibliometric indicators have been used to support the evaluation of QoS in the 2020 Review of the Phase 2-CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs, 2017–2022), where, for the first time, the Quality of Research for Development (QoR4D) frame of reference has been utilized across the entire CGIAR CRP portfolio. Overall, the CRP review showed a significant output of scientific publications during the period 2017–2020, with 4,872 articles, 220,101 references, and 7.1 citations per article. Additionally, wider interest in scientific publications is demonstrated by good to high altmetrics, with average attention scores ranging from 70.8 to 806.9 with an average of 425.1. The use of selected bibliometrics was shown to be an adequate tool, for use together with other qualitative indicators to evaluate the QoS in the 12 CRPs. The CRP review process clearly demonstrated that standardized, harmonized and consistent data on research output is paramount to provide high-quality quantitative instruments and should be a priority throughout the transition toward One CGIAR. Therefore, we conclude that the QoR4D framework should be augmented by standardized bibliometric indicators embedded in measurement frameworks within the new One CGIAR. Finally, its practical utilization in monitoring and evaluation should be supported with clear guidelines.

Standard minimi di qualitŕ: un approccio teorico

2012 ◽  
pp. 29-41
Author(s):  
Grassi Iacopo
Keyword(s):  
High Standard ◽  
Policy Instrument ◽  
Quality Standard ◽  
Average Quality ◽  
Proposed Model ◽  
Positive Externality ◽  
Experience Good ◽  
The Government ◽  
Minimum Quality

At least since Akerlof (1970), asymmetric information in the case of experience goods has been a central issue in the economic literature. This paper studies regulation in markets where the quality of the experience good is never completely verifiable by consumers even after purchase. In the proposed model firms can decide the quality of the good: always producing a high quality good creates a positive externality in the market, but it causes an incentive to the firms to deviate and produce low quality goods. The main policy instrument for the government, in order to maximize Social Welfare, is to fix a minimum quality standard, but imposing a too high standard might, in some cases, lower the average quality of the good in the market.

Systemic School Improvement Interventions in South Africa

2014 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
School Improvement ◽  
South African ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Eastern Cape ◽  
North West ◽  
Household Level ◽  
The North ◽  
Improvement Interventions ◽  
Academic Review

Looking at two smaller-scale systemic school improvement projects implemented in selected district circuits in the North West and Eastern Cape by partnerships between government, JET Education Services, and private sector organisations, this book captures and reflects on the experiences of the practitioners involved. The Systemic School Improvement Model developed by JET to address an identified range of interconnected challenges at district, school, classroom and household level, is made up of seven components. In reflecting on what worked and what did not in the implementation of these different components, the different chapters set out some of the practical lessons learnt, which could be used to improve the design and implementation of similar education improvement projects. Many of the lessons in this field that remain under-recorded to date relate to the step-by-step processes followed, the relationship dynamics encountered at different levels of the education system, and the local realities confronting schools and districts in South Africa's rural areas. Drawing on field data that is often not available to researchers, the book endeavours to address this gap and record these lessons. It is not intended to provide an academic review of the systemic school improvement projects. It is presented rather to offer other development practitioners working to improve the quality of education in South African schools, an understanding of some of the real practical and logistical challenges that arise and how these may be resolved to take further school improvement projects forward at a wider district, provincial and national scale.

scholarly journals Feasibility and Quality Determinants of 3D Sonography in Children With Hydronephrosis

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-36
Author(s):  
Hansel J. Otero ◽  
Juan J. Cerrolaza ◽  
Judyta Loomis ◽  
Amanda George ◽  
Elijah Biggs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Image Quality ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Motion Artifact ◽  
Infants And Toddlers ◽  
Average Quality ◽  
Good Image Quality ◽  
Kidney Size ◽  
Good Image ◽  
3D Sonography

The objective was to determine the image quality of 3D diagnostic medical sonography (DMS) in children with hydronephrosis. 3D DMS was assessed based on 24 pediatric patients. Image quality was evaluated by two radiologists and a sonographer in terms of rib shadowing, cut-off parenchymal edges, motion artifact, and overall quality. The interreader reliability and relation between image quality and other variables were calculated. The results were based on images of 32 hydronephrotic kidneys. The average quality scoring of the images was quite high. Rib shadowing, cut-off edges, and motion artifact were present in the majority of the cases. The interreader reliability for overall quality, rib shadowing, cut-off, and motion was quite high. There was a correlation between the Society for Fetal and Neonatal Urology’s hydronephrosis grade and higher cut-off edges. Larger kidneys were more likely to show cut-off, motion, and lower quality scores. In this cohort of infants and toddlers with hydronephrotic kidneys, 3D DMS demonstrated good image quality; however, artifacts were attributed to kidney size and severity of hydronephrosis.

scholarly journals 2021 Transportation Science Meritorious Service Awards

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
The Many

We are pleased to announce the recipients of the inaugural Transportation Science Meritorious Service Awards. These awards recognize associate editors and reviewers who have offered exceptional service in the review process. We truly appreciate all the efforts of the many volunteers who provide invaluable service to the journal. The 2021 recipients have distinguished themselves by the number of papers handled, their efficiency in handling papers, and the quality of their reviews.

scholarly journals Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication and Scientific Publishing

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Bishnu Bahadur Khatri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

Peer review in scholarly communication and scientific publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In the growing interest of scholarly research and publication, this paper tries to discuss about peer review process and its different types to communicate the early career researchers and academics.This paper has used the published and unpublished documents for information collection. It reveals that peer review places the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of scientific publishing. It is the system used to assess the quality of scientific research before it is published. Therefore, it concludes that peer review is used to advancing and testing scientific knowledgeas a quality control mechanism forscientists, publishers and the public.

scholarly journals Evaluating, Improving, and Appreciating Peer Review at IJTMB

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Ann Blair Kennedy, LMT, BCTMB, DrPH
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Improve Efficiency ◽  
Peer Reviewers

  Peer review is a mainstay of scientific publishing and, while peer reviewers and scientists report satisfaction with the process, peer review has not been without criticism. Within this editorial, the peer review process at the IJTMB is defined and explained. Further, seven steps are identified by the editors as a way to improve efficiency of the peer review and publication process. Those seven steps are: 1) Ask authors to submit possible reviewers; 2) Ask reviewers to update profiles; 3) Ask reviewers to “refer a friend”; 4) Thank reviewers regularly; 5) Ask published authors to review for the Journal; 6) Reduce the length of time to accept peer review invitation; and 7) Reduce requested time to complete peer review. We believe these small requests and changes can have a big effect on the quality of reviews and speed in which manuscripts are published. This manuscript will present instructions for completing peer review profiles. Finally, we more formally recognize and thank peer reviewers from 2018–2020.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document