scholarly journals Manuscripts Published in a Specific Chemistry Journal Must Be Both Important and Suitable According to Peer Reviewers

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-157
Author(s):  
Michelle DuBroy
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Decision Rules ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
International Edition ◽  
Year 2000

A Review of: Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). The manuscript reviewing process: empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review. Library & Information Science Research, 32(1), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2009.07.010 Abstract Objective – To examine the peer review process at a single journal. Design – Analysis of business records. Setting – Peer review system of a single journal. Subjects – Documents produced when reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication to journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition and reviewed in the year 2000. Methods – Peer review process information was extracted from the journal’s archives. Various aspects, such as review sequences and decision rules, were analysed and summarised in tables. Main results – Of the 1899 manuscripts reviewed in the year 2000, 46% (n = 878) were accepted for publication and 54% (n = 1021) were rejected. On average, a manuscript received 2.6 reviews before an editor made a publication decision. Just over half (n = 962, approx. 51%) of manuscripts were subject to two review steps. A small number of manuscripts (n = 104, approx. 5.5%) were subject to 5, 6 or 7 review steps. The more steps an article was subject to, the greater likelihood it would be accepted. Editors “generally follow a so-called clear-cut rule” (p.11) in which manuscripts accepted for publication must be considered both important and suitable for publication by at least two peer reviewers. Conclusion – The results “give a sense of commitment [and care] ...probably typical of most prestigious journals” (p.11).

scholarly journals The role and significance of peer-review in Russian and foreign library and information science journals: a comparative analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
V.  N. Gureyev ◽  
N.  A. Mazov
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Review System ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Peer Reviewers

The paper summarizes experience of the authors as peer-reviewers of more than 100 manuscripts in twelve Russian and foreign academic journals on Library and Information Science in the last seven years. Prepared peer-reviews were used for making a list of the most usual critical and special comments for each manuscript that were subsequently structured for the conducted analyzes. Typical issues accompanying the peer-review process are shown. Significant differences between the results of peer-review in Russian and foreign journals are detected: although the initial quality of newly submitted manuscripts is approximately equal, the final published versions in foreign journals addressed all critical and the majority of minor reviewers’ comments, while in Russian journals more than one third of final versions were published with critical gaps. We conclude about low interest in high quality peer reviews among both authors and editors-in-chief in Russian journals. Despite the limitations of the samples, the obtained findings can be useful when evaluating the current peer-review system in Russian academic journals on Library and Information Science.

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.

scholarly journals The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Giordan ◽  
Attila Csikasz-Nagy ◽  
Andrew M. Collings ◽  
Federico Vaggi
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Decision Type ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Decision Times

BackgroundPublishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications.MethodsHere we examine an element of the editorial process ateLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions toeLifesince June 2012, of which 2,750 were sent for peer review, using R and Python to perform the statistical analysis.ResultsThe Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and 5 days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). There was no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates for published articles where the Reviewing Editor served as one of the peer reviewers.ConclusionsAn important aspect ofeLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.

scholarly journals Metascience on Peer Review: Testing the Effects of a Study’s Originality and Statistical Significance in a Field Experiment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malte Elson ◽  
Markus Huff ◽  
Sonja Utz
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiment ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Selection Method ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Peer review has become the gold standard in scientific publishing as a selection method and a refinement scheme for research reports. However, despite its pervasiveness and conferred importance, relatively little empirical research has been conducted to document its effectiveness. Further, there is evidence that factors other than a submission’s merits can substantially influence peer reviewers’ evaluations. We report the results of a metascientific field experiment on the effect of the originality of a study and the statistical significance of its primary outcome on reviewers’ evaluations. The general aim of this experiment, which was carried out in the peer-review process for a conference, was to demonstrate the feasibility and value of metascientific experiments on the peer-review process and thereby encourage research that will lead to understanding its mechanisms and determinants, effectively contextualizing it in psychological theories of various biases, and developing practical procedures to increase its utility.

scholarly journals High adoption rates in a new preprint service from Springer Nature and Research Square

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damian Pattinson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Manuscript Reviewer ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Gates Foundation

In recent years, funders have increased their support for early sharing of biomedical research through the use of preprints. For most, such as the COAlitionS group of funders (ASAPbio 2019) and the Gates foundation, this takes the form of active encouragement, while for others, it is mandated. But despite these motivations, few authors are routinely depositing their work as a preprint before submitting to a journal. Some journals have started offering authors the option of posting their work early at the point at which it is submitted for review. These include PLOS, who offer a link to BiorXiv, the Cell journals, who offer SSRN posting through ‘Sneak Peak’, and Nature Communications, who offer posting to any preprint and a link from the journal page called ‘Under Consideration’. Uptake has ranged from 3% for the Nature pilot, to 18% for PLOS (The Official Plos Blog 2018). In order to encourage more researchers to post their work early, we have been offering authors who submit to BMC Series titles the opportunity to post their work as a preprint on Research Square, a new platform that lets authors share and improve their research. To encourage participation, authors are offered a greater amount of control and transparency over the peer review process if they opt in. First, they are given a detailed peer review timeline which updates in real time every time an event occurs on their manuscript (reviewer invited, reviewer accepts etc). Second, they are encouraged to share their preprint with colleagues, who are able to post comments on the paper. These comments are sent to the editor when they are making their decision. Third, authors can suggest potential peer reviewers, recommendations which are also passed onto the editor to vet and invite. Together, these incentives have had a positive impact on authors choosing to post a preprint. Among the journals that offer this service, the average opt-in rate is 40%. This translates to over 3,000 manuscripts (as of July 2019) that have been posted to Research Square since the launch of the service in October 2018. In this talk I will demonstrate the functionality of Research Square, and provide demographic and discipline data on which areas are most and least likely to post.

scholarly journals PREFACE: TECHNICAL COMMISSION IV ON SPATIAL INFORMATION SCIENCE

2020 ◽  
Vol XLIII-B4-2020 ◽  
pp. 7-9
Author(s):  
S. Zlatanova ◽  
S. Dragicevic ◽  
G. Sithole
Keyword(s):  
Data Fusion ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Spatial Information ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Spatial Information Science ◽  
Advance Research

Abstract. The unusual circumstances created by the coronavirus pandemic has impacted recent activities of Commission IV. The situation also provides an excellent opportunity to connect the work of the Commission to addressing an important global problem. Managing the social and economic challenges brought by increased complexity and interconnectivity of activities in human society requires new dimensions of analysing information and specifically spatial information. The increased pressure on the usage of geographic space, maintaining sustainable development and creating liveable community environments increases the requirements for spatial decision-making tools. Commission IV Spatial Information Science (2016–2020) is dedicated to advance research activities in spatial information sciences for modelling, structuring, management, analysis, visualization and simulation of (big) data with focus on the third spatial dimension and taking into consideration dynamic changes. Special attention is given to linking information about real-world physical phenomena with societal, organizational and legal information in order to address the complexity of issues in their entirety. The Commission has contributed to advancements in data modelling, data fusion and management, visualization (web-based, VR and AR), simulation and city analytics, and 3D applications. The work had largely been implemented in cooperation with international organizations such as FIG, UDMS, 3DGeoinfo, ICA, OGC, ISO and Web3D.The Commission consists of 10 scientific areas of research that is coordinated by 10 working groups (WG) as follows - WG1: Strengthen the work on multidimensional spatial model and representations towards seamless data fusion; WG2: Advance the semantic modelling, development and linking of ontologies; WG3: Intensify research into data interpretation, quality and uncertainty modelling; WG4: Strengthen research on crowdsourced data and public participation, towards community-driven and participatory applications, collaborative mapping and use/usability of maps; WG5: Strengthen research on seamless indoor/outdoor location-based services, navigation and tracking, and analysis of human movement; WG6: Advance interoperable Internet of Things, Sensor web, SDI and linked data; WG7: Advance research on spatial data types, indexing methods and analysis to further contribute to development of spatial DBMS for management and analysis of multi-dimensional data; WG8: Encourage the use of functional programming and streaming algorithms in development of demos and applications as well as parallel and distributed processing paradigms; WG9: Advance visual analytics, online multi-dimensional visualization on mobile and desktop devices, considering human-centred applications, privacy and security issues; WG10: Advance knowledge on the use of spatial information (BIM/GIS) for urban modelling; ICWG IV/III: Global Mapping: Updating, Verification and Interoperability with the mission to promote the development of advanced methodologies and applications for the update, verification and interoperability of geospatial databases.The papers received for the ISPRS congress reflect the above-mentioned scientific research areas. The reported research ranges from advancements in new and emerging theories, through experiments and analysis to demonstration of technologies in different applications. The research was captured through papers and abstracts published in the collection of ISPRS Annals and ISPRS Archives. The papers and abstracts were selected for inclusion through a rigorous peer-review process. The ISPRS Annals contain 29 papers and the ISPRS Archives contain 114 papers. The diversity of the research topics presented in the published papers clearly indicate the wide range of topics within the field of Spatial Information Science. A rigorous peer-review process by the ISPRS TC IV Scientific Committee Working Group Chairs ensured hight quality and scientific innovation.

scholarly journals The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Giordan ◽  
Attila Csikasz-Nagy ◽  
Andrew M. Collings ◽  
Federico Vaggi
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Decision Type ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Decision Times

BackgroundPublishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications.MethodsHere we examine an element of the editorial process ateLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions toeLifesince June 2012, of which 2,747 were sent for peer review. This subset of 2747 papers was then analysed in detail.  ResultsThe Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and five days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). Moreover, editors acting as reviewers had no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates.ConclusionsAn important aspect ofeLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.

scholarly journals Preface: Technical Commission IV on Spatial Information Science

2020 ◽  
Vol V-4-2020 ◽  
pp. 7-9
Author(s):  
S. Zlatanova ◽  
S. Dragicevic ◽  
G. Sithole
Keyword(s):  
Data Fusion ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Spatial Information ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Spatial Information Science ◽  
Advance Research

Abstract. The unusual circumstances created by the coronavirus pandemic has impacted recent activities of Commission IV. The situation also provides an excellent opportunity to connect the work of the Commission to addressing an important global problem. Managing the social and economic challenges brought by increased complexity and interconnectivity of activities in human society requires new dimensions of analysing information and specifically spatial information. The increased pressure on the usage of geographic space, maintaining sustainable development and creating liveable community environments increases the requirements for spatial decision-making tools. Commission IV Spatial Information Science (2016–2020) is dedicated to advance research activities in spatial information sciences for modelling, structuring, management, analysis, visualization and simulation of (big) data with focus on the third spatial dimension and taking into consideration dynamic changes. Special attention is given to linking information about real-world physical phenomena with societal, organizational and legal information in order to address the complexity of issues in their entirety. The Commission has contributed to advancements in data modelling, data fusion and management, visualization (web-based, VR and AR), simulation and city analytics, and 3D applications. The work had largely been implemented in cooperation with international organizations such as FIG, UDMS, 3DGeoinfo, ICA, OGC, ISO and Web3D.The Commission consists of 10 scientific areas of research that is coordinated by 10 working groups (WG) as follows - WG1: Strengthen the work on multidimensional spatial model and representations towards seamless data fusion; WG2: Advance the semantic modelling, development and linking of ontologies; WG3: Intensify research into data interpretation, quality and uncertainty modelling; WG4: Strengthen research on crowdsourced data and public participation, towards community-driven and participatory applications, collaborative mapping and use/usability of maps; WG5: Strengthen research on seamless indoor/outdoor location-based services, navigation and tracking, and analysis of human movement; WG6: Advance interoperable Internet of Things, Sensor web, SDI and linked data; WG7: Advance research on spatial data types, indexing methods and analysis to further contribute to development of spatial DBMS for management and analysis of multi-dimensional data; WG8: Encourage the use of functional programming and streaming algorithms in development of demos and applications as well as parallel and distributed processing paradigms; WG9: Advance visual analytics, online multi-dimensional visualization on mobile and desktop devices, considering human-centred applications, privacy and security issues; WG10: Advance knowledge on the use of spatial information (BIM/GIS) for urban modelling; ICWG IV/III: Global Mapping: Updating, Verification and Interoperability with the mission to promote the development of advanced methodologies and applications for the update, verification and interoperability of geospatial databases.The papers received for the ISPRS congress reflect the above-mentioned scientific research areas. The reported research ranges from advancements in new and emerging theories, through experiments and analysis to demonstration of technologies in different applications. The research was captured through papers and abstracts published in the collection of ISPRS Annals and ISPRS Archives. The papers and abstracts were selected for inclusion through a rigorous peer-review process. The ISPRS Annals contain 29 papers and the ISPRS Archives contain 114 papers. The diversity of the research topics presented in the published papers clearly indicate the wide range of topics within the field of Spatial Information Science. A rigorous peer-review process by the ISPRS TC IV Scientific Committee Working Group Chairs ensured hight quality and scientific innovation.

scholarly journals Metascience on Peer Review: Testing the Effects of a Study’s Originality and Statistical Significance in a Field Experiment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malte Elson ◽  
Markus Huff ◽  
Sonja Utz
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiment ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Selection Method ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Peer review has become the gold standard in scientific publishing as a selection method and a refinement scheme for research reports. However, despite its pervasiveness and conferred importance, relatively little empirical research has been conducted to document its effectiveness. Further, there is evidence that factors other than a submission’s merits can substantially influence peer reviewers’ evaluations. We report the results of a metascientific field experiment on the effect of the originality of a study and the statistical significance of its primary outcome on reviewers’ evaluations. The general aim of this experiment, which was carried out in the peer-review process for a conference, was to demonstrate the feasibility and value of metascientific experiments on the peer-review process and thereby encourage research that will lead to understanding its mechanisms and determinants, effectively contextualizing it in psychological theories of various biases, and developing practical procedures to increase its utility.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document