scholarly journals Choosing the scientific journal for publishing research work: perceptions of medical and dental researchers

2017 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nagarajappa Sandesh ◽  
Shilpa Wahrekar
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Publishing House ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Rejection Rate ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Online Submission

Background and aim. With the increasing demand to publish due to ‘publish or perish’ culture among research and academic institutions, the choice of a journal for publishing scientific articles becomes very important. A publication with many citations and high impact factor can propel researchers in their academic careers. The aim of this study is to explore the perceptions of medical and dental researchers in India about the important criteria to consider while selecting scientific journals for publishing their research.Methods. 206 faculty staff members from three medical and five dental institutions were selected through convenience sampling. The study participants completed a questionnaire with 24 closed ended questions on various factors related to journal selection for publication. Factors such as publication frequency, journal citation, indexing, peer-review, impact factor, publication fees, acceptance or rejection rate, publishing house, previous submission and online submission process were considered. The responses were recorded using a Likert scale. Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency or homogeneity was 0.909. Descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney U test were employed for comparison of responses among study participants.Results. The mean weight of 24 criteria on a scale of 0 to 4 varied between 2.13 and 3.45. The results showed that indexing of journal (3.45±0.74), online submission (3.24±0.83), impact factor (3.11±0.91), peer-review process (3.0±1.02) and publication fees (2.99±1.11) were among the most important criteria to consider in journal selection.Conclusions Of the 24 factors considered by health researchers for journal selection, the most important were Journal indexing, online submission, impact factor, peer-review and publication fees. Compared to dental researchers, medical researchers perceived open access and peer-review process as significantly more important criteria.

scholarly journals Publish-and-Flourish: Using Blockchain Platform to Enable Cooperative Scholarly Communication

Publications ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Emilija Stojmenova Duh ◽  
Andrej Duh ◽  
Uroš Droftina ◽  
Tim Kos ◽  
Urban Duh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
User Behavior ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Cooperative Behavior ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Research Paper ◽  
Strategic Games ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Smart Contract

Scholarly communication is today immersed in publish-or-perish culture that propels non-cooperative behavior in the sense of strategic games played by researchers. Here we introduce and describe a blockchain based platform for decentralized scholarly communication. The design of the platform rests on community driven publishing reviewing processes and implements cryptoeconomic incentives that promote cooperative user behavior. The key to achieve cooperation in blockchain based scholarly communication is to transform today’s static research paper into a modifiable research paper under continuous peer review process. We introduce and discuss the implementation of a modifiable research paper as a smart contract on the blockchain.

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.

IMPROVING THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

2021 ◽  
pp. 82-83
Author(s):  
Oluwole Gbolagunte Ajao ◽  
Adekola Alao
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Administrative Positions ◽  
Selection Of

SUMMARY: The peer review process has been regarded as an essential part of accepting or rejecting a paper for publication since 1752 when the process was started by The Royal Society of London in the publication entitled “Philosophical Transactions”. In developing countries, one of the primary reasons for submitting pieces for publication is to support promotion in universities. In fact, the argument can be made that the only reason for publishing in developing countries is for faculty promotion. Despite the peer review process being standard practice for scientic journals, many of the research publications on COVID-19 were not subjected to the peer review system. In fact, numerous publications were pre-prints and papers shared by researchers online which were not peer reviewed, yet they were accepted and published by scientic journals in developing nations. When authors start to lose condence in the peer review process of a journal, they are not likely to submit their research work to such journals and this can lead to a diminished impact and reputation of such journals. Additionally, the selection of the assessors by the Editor-in -Chief is usually from the academic space of the editor and from the colleagues of the editor that usually share the editor's view. Contrary to what some editors in the developing countries believe, medical and academic administrative positions do not necessarily result in expertise in the peer review process. An editor can easily identify a poor assessment of an article, from the vitriolic feed-back of the author to the editor about an assessor when a paper is not recommended for publication. This paper provides evidence of and outlines the possible reasons that the peer review process is substandard in developing countries.

Guia prático do artigo científico

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Silvia Pereira Santos ◽  
◽  
Daniele Maia Bila ◽  
Emanuel Manfred Freire Brandt ◽  
Juacyara Carbonelli Campos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Master's Degree ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Simple Task ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Master’S Degree

Publishing a scientific article is not a simple task. You may ultimately have to publish a paper to either take scientific grants or take a Ph.D. or master's degree, so it is to your advantage to keep all the necessary steps in your hands. First and foremost, when you are asked to write such a paper, it is essential to organize your ideas in a way that is convenient for submitting a manuscript for consideration in an appropriate journal. Everyone who has submitted a manuscript in a scientific journal has had the frustrating experience of spending a long time writing the manuscript and waiting for the journal feedback, only to discover at the end that your article is not good enough for publication in that journal. Therefore, the task wouldn't end if the manuscript weren't accepted for publication, following a long peer-review process. However, you have no idea how to be successful in publishing your article? Calm down! There are several reasons for using this guide. This work was designed exactly to help you, casually, but with much content. All the authors' experience is shared here, with tips and recommendations to save you from frequent mistakes and lead you to the fastest and most assertive path. Not only have you the charge of contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge, but also to publish your research with responsibility. Publishing your article will not be easy, but it would be nice and less complicated if you came with us to build it up.

scholarly journals Lifting the lid on impact and peer review

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 239821282110065
Author(s):  
Joseph Clift ◽  
Anne Cooke ◽  
Anthony R. Isles ◽  
Jeffrey W. Dalley ◽  
Richard N. Henson
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Neuroscience Community

Brain and Neuroscience Advances has grown in tandem with the British Neuroscience Association’s campaign to build Credibility in Neuroscience, which encourages actions and initiatives aimed at improving reproducibility, reliability and openness. This commitment to credibility impacts not only what the Journal publishes, but also how it operates. With that in mind, the Editorial Board sought the views of the neuroscience community on the peer review process, and on how they should respond to the Journal Impact Factor that will be assigned to Brain and Neuroscience Advances. In this editorial, we present the results of a survey of neuroscience researchers conducted in the autumn of 2020 and discuss the broader implications of our findings for the Journal and the neuroscience community.

scholarly journals Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer‐Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Gaudino ◽  
N. Bryce Robinson ◽  
Antonino Di Franco ◽  
Irbaz Hameed ◽  
Ajita Naik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Rejection Rate ◽  
Unique Identifier ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Cost

Background Quality of the peer‐review process has been tested only in small studies. We describe and summarize the randomized trials that investigated interventions aimed at improving peer‐review process of biomedical manuscripts. Methods and Results All randomized trials comparing different peer‐review interventions at author‐, reviewer‐, and/or editor‐level were included. Differences between traditional and intervention‐modified peer‐review processes were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD) in quality based on the definitions used in the individual studies. Main outcomes assessed were quality and duration of the peer‐review process. Five‐hundred and seventy‐five studies were retrieved, eventually yielding 24 randomized trials. Eight studies evaluated the effect of interventions at author‐level, 16 at reviewer‐level, and 3 at editor‐level. Three studies investigated interventions at multiple levels. The effects of the interventions were reported as mean change in review quality, duration of the peer‐review process, acceptance/rejection rate, manuscript quality, and number of errors detected in 13, 11, 5, 4, and 3 studies, respectively. At network meta‐analysis, reviewer‐level interventions were associated with a significant improvement in review quality (SMD, 0.20 [0.06 to 0.33]), at the cost of increased duration of the review process (SMD, 0.15 [0.01 to 0.29]), except for reviewer blinding. Author‐ and editor‐level interventions did not significantly impact peer‐review quality and duration (respectively, SMD, 0.17 [−0.16 to 0.51] and SMD, 0.19 [−0.40 to 0.79] for quality, and SMD, 0.17 [−0.16 to 0.51] and SMD, 0.19 [−0.40 to 0.79] for duration). Conclusions Modifications of the traditional peer‐review process at reviewer‐level are associated with improved quality, at the price of longer duration. Further studies are needed. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero ; Unique identifier: CRD42020187910.

scholarly journals How Much Free Labor? Estimating Reviewers’ Contribution to Publishers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Balazs Aczel ◽  
Barnabas Szaszi
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Free Labor ◽  
Monetary Value ◽  
True Values

In this paper, we estimated the time, as well as the salary-based monetary value, of the work scientific journal publishers received in 2019 from reviewers in the peer-review process. In case of uncertainty, we used conservative estimates for our parameters, therefore, the true values are likely to be above our results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document