scholarly journals Thank You to Our 2020 Reviewers

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kit Sturgess
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Board Meeting ◽  
Diversity And Inclusion ◽  
Strategic Initiatives ◽  
New Information ◽  
First Time

2020 will be a year to remember! One of the standout features for me has been the speed with which ‘science’ has responded to the crisis in terms of developing and disseminating new information to the community highlighting the importance of digital communication – a space that Veterinary Evidence comfortably occupies. The availability of pre peer-reviewed papers has become the norm but it has also emphasised the essential need and benefit of the peer-review process as a significant number of pre-review papers have not made it through to ‘publication’ as issues were identified during the peer-review process. As Editor-in-chief it makes me proud and thankful that Veterinary Evidence has a strong but agile peer-review process and I would like to thank all of our editors and reviewers for their continued support and their diligence in meeting demanding timelines during of these challenging times allowing Veterinary Evidence to publish more content than ever before. Without your highly valued knowledge, expertise and insights Veterinary Evidence would not be growing into the key knowledge source that it is today. The Veterinary Evidence Editorial Board Meeting was held for the first time digitally on 7 December with the largest number of editorial board members able to attend. Members from across the globe were able to take part in wide and varied discussions around the development of the journal, resulting in important strategic initiatives and some key action points to pursue. The availability of the board to attend digitally will facilitate more frequent meetings allowing the journal to be more inclusive, and responsive to the changing landscape, as well as providing a digital recording of the event available for those board members unable to attend. Key areas discussed included development of the format of PICOs and further refining the process for approving them, strategies to encourage engagement and submissions from veterinary nurses, and the development of policies to encourage diversity and inclusion within the board and contributors to the journal, as well as ways to increase the reach of the journal. Having only been Editor-in-chief since September, I have been very impressed by how active and dedicated our reviewers and board members are and how dynamic and forward-looking Veterinary Evidence is as it matures into a key contributor to veterinary literature. None of this would be possible without your support for which I am very grateful.  

scholarly journals From the Desk of Editor

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Arun Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Turnaround Time ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Late Response ◽  
Medical Sciences

Dear All Associated Users of AJMS: It gives us immense pleasure to publish the current issue of AJMS Vol 12 No 1 (2021). We started our journey from 2010 with an online edition of AJMS. Slowly we progressed with the support of our committed and strong team of Editorial board members and launched the printed edition in the year 2015 and we further expanded our publication frequency from quarterly issue to bimonthly issue. With the overwhelming response and support from our users, we now take a leap to publish monthly issue from this year (2021) onwards.  With the current expansion of edition, we make it clear that we have not made any compromise in the quality of articles which we publish in AJMS. We have been striving hard to serve the potential authors who has entrusted on us and chosen our journal to publish their manuscripts, making our journal as their journal of choice! On submission, the manuscripts are assigned to editor and section editor for initial review process, followed by assigning the manuscript to three reviewers of which two are internal reviewers and one outside the editorial board (external reviewer). The blind review process in our journal takes six to eight weeks’, sometimes even earlier depending on the reviewers and the decision is made once the review report is submitted to the editor. Sometimes the delay in turnaround time happens which is unavoidable due to late response from reviewers and from the authors. We insist the authors to communicate with the editor soon the review reports are sent to them for revisions. This would further shrink the time of publication from submission. The reviewers and the editorial board members are solely responsible for taking initial decision of the article but the final decision is based on the Editor. The best part of our journal is we respond to each and every author promptly and do not ignore any queries.  The details of the journal can be viewed by clicking the links of particular sections- Focus and Scope, Peer Review Process, Open Access Policy, Publication Frequency, Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of Asian Journal of Medical Sciences, Duties of Reviewers, Duties of Authors, Indexing of Asian Journal of Medical Sciences can be viewed by this link-https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/AJMS/about Submission Preparation Checklist, Author Guidelines, Plagiarism Policy can be viewed by following this link-https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/AJMS/about/submissions Authors are advised to go through the guidelines and then submit their manuscripts We look forward to further enhance the quality of article in AJMS and we will strive hard to ensure this journal goes global, in the future. Thank you all for your support and entrusting on us. Prof. Dr. Arun Kumar Editor-in-Chief, Asian Journal of Medical Sciences

scholarly journals Chief Editor's Voice

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Prof. Dr. Ashok Kumar Jha
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Research Journal ◽  
Service Commission ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Double Blinded

The RMC of the campus feels much pleasure to publish the annual multi-disciplinary peer reviewed research journal DRISTIKON as vol. 11(1). The journal and the articles published in it are clear evidence and fulfill the requirements laid down by UGC, Nepal, Tribhuvan University Service Commission, APA 7th ed. and other platforms. The journal is designed to serve as an outlet for an intellectual forum for the communication of intellectual ideas among professionals and other social scientists in relevant areas in general and with special reference to Nepal. The board welcomes all the professionals, researchers and all those interested to publish their research findings with significant contribution to society, education sector and international platform. Authors are also encouraged to submit papers which are related to current international, national or local issues. Almost all the scholarly and research articles published in the journal undergo the editorial peer review process prior to publication to fulfill the requirements of peer review process guided by UGC, Nepal and international standard. The goal of the peer review process is to ensure that the valid article is accepted, the messy article cleaned up, and the invalid article rejected. The board of editors has accepted the reviewer’s recommendations. All the articles submitted for publication are subjected to rigorous double blinded peer review to ensure its quality before it gets published.  Manuscripts submitted to this journal must not have been published or accepted for publication or submitted for publication elsewhere. The journal strictly follows guidelines of APA 7th ed. as well as strongly opposes plagiarized contents without proper citation. Following the necessary corrections and additions resulting from the review process the twenty accepted papers were included into the issue covering the specific areas of Nepali, English, Political Science, Science and Management. The cooperation extended by scholars and institutions in publishing this journal is highly appreciated. The opinions expressed in the articles are the author’s own and do not reflect the view of either the publisher or the editorial board. All manuscripts once published becomes the property of the publisher. We hope that inspiration and encouragement from the readers will continue to keep the ‘Dristikon’ alive and develop. We are also looking forward to receiving your comments and suggestions for further improvement in the future. We are grateful to the peer reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. The editorial board heartily thanks all the writers who have contributed research articles. We would also like to give special thanks to the campus chief Mr. Damodar Bhandari for his constant support in terms of finance and administration for the publication of this journal.

scholarly journals Ensuring Quality and Status: Peer Review Practices in Kriterium, A Portal for Quality-Marked Monographs and Edited Volumes in Swedish SSH

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Björn Hammarfelt ◽  
Isak Hammar ◽  
Helena Francke
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Important Indicator ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Publication Patterns ◽  
Novel Approach

Although established forms of peer review are often criticized for being slow, secretive, and even unfair, they are repeatedly mentioned by academics as the most important indicator of quality in scholarly publishing. In many countries, the peer review of books is a less codified practice than that of journal articles or conference papers, and the processes and actors involved are far from uniform. In Sweden, the review process of books has seldom been formalized. However, more formal peer review of books has been identified as a response to the increasing importance placed on streamlined peer-reviewed publishing of journal articles in English, which has been described as a direct challenge to more pluralistic publication patterns found particularly in the humanities. In this study, we focus on a novel approach to book review, Kriterium, where an independent portal maintained by academic institutions oversees the reviewing of academic books. The portal administers peer reviews, providing a mark of quality through a process which involves reviewers, an academic coordinator, and an editorial board. The paper studies how this process functions in practice by exploring materials concerning 24 scholarly books reviewed within Kriterium. Our analysis specifically targets tensions identified in the process of reviewing books with a focus on three main themes, namely the intended audience, the edited volume, and the novel role of the academic coordinator. Moreover, we find that the two main aims of the portal–quality enhancement (making research better) and certification (displaying that research is of high quality)–are recurrent in deliberations made in the peer review process. Consequently, we argue that reviewing procedures and criteria of quality are negotiated within a broader discussion where more traditional forms of publishing are challenged by new standards and evaluation practices.

scholarly journals Is peer review evolving in the open access environment? A survey of Croatian open access journals

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jadranka Stojanovski ◽  
Ivana Hebrang Grgić
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Parent Institution

Most of the journals in Croatia adopted the open access (OA) model and their content is freely accessible and available for reuse without restrictions except that attribution be given to the author(s) and journal. There are 444 Croatian scholarly, professional, popular and trade OA journals available in the national repository of OA journals Hrcak, and 217 of them use peer review process as the primary quality assurance system. The goal of our study was to investigate the peer review process used by the Croatian OA journals and the editors’ attitude towards open peer review.An online survey was sent to the Hrcak journal editors with 39 questions grouped in: journal general information, a number of submitted/rejected/accepted manuscripts and timeliness of publishing, peer review process characteristics, instructions for peer reviewers and open peer review. Responses were obtained from 152 editors (141 complete and 11 partial). All journals employ peer review process except one. The data were collected from February to July 2017.The majority of journals come from the humanities (n=50, 33%) and social sciences (n=37, 24%). Less represented are journals from the field of biomedicine (n=22, 14%), technical sciences (n=16, 11%), natural sciences (n=12, 8%), biotechnical sciences (n=10, 7%) and interdisciplinary journals (n=3, 2%). Average journal submission is 54 manuscripts per year, but there are big differences among journals: maximum submission is 550 manuscripts, and minimum just five. In average journal publishes 23 papers after the reviewers’ and editors’ acceptance. In average it takes 16 days for sending the manuscript to the reviewer, 49 days for all the reviewers to send the journal a detailed report on the manuscript, 14 days to the editors’ decision, and another 60 days for the paper to be published.External peer review process where reviewers are not members of the editorial board or employees of the journal’s parent institution was used by 86 journals (60%). Other journals use external peer review process where reviewers are not members of the editorial board but could be employees of the journal’s parent institution (n=40, 28%), and editorial peer review. Remaining 10% journals combine previous three types of the peer review. Only 20% journals use exclusively reviewers from abroad, 44% are combining international and national reviewers, and 36% journals use only reviewers from Croatia.The majority of journals provide two reviews for each manuscript, and the process is double blind. Detailed instructions for peer reviewers are provided by less than half of the journals (n=57, 40%), but ethical issues like plagiarism, conflict of interest, confidentiality etc., are neglected. Usually, a reviewer is not informed of the final decision upon the manuscript, and reviews are not shared among reviewers.Somehow surprising was the opinion of the majority of the editors that reviewers must get credit for their efforts (n=121, 85%). On the other hand, editors are not familiar with the concept of open peer review, which can be easily used for that purpose. Some editors believe that open peer review is related to the identity disclosure: both authors’ and reviewers’ (n=35, 25%), reviewers’ (n=27, 19%), and authors’ identity (n=14, 10%). For many editors open peer review implies publicly available reviews (n=65, 36%) and authors’ responses (n=46, 33%). Open peer review is an unknown concept for some editors (n=32, 23%).In spite of all criticism traditional peer review is predominant in Croatian OA journals. Our findings show that traditional peer review is still the preferred review mechanism for the majority of journals in the study.

The Peer Review of “Outcome of Depression in Psychiatric Settings”

1994 ◽  
Vol 164 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-308
Author(s):  
Alan Lee ◽  
Gordon Parker
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Decisions ◽  
Shed Light

To facilitate the introduction of this new section, designed to shed light on the peer review process, the Editor has used the review of a paper of which he is a co-author. The referees for this paper were originally anonymous, but they both agreed to be named for the purposes of this article. The original article was twice the length of the published version. The effect of the assessment should be readily apparent. Editorial decisions were undertaken by members of the Editorial Board other than the current Editor.

scholarly journals Assessment of Variables that Influence Agreement Amongst Reviewers for Foot & Ankle International

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473011418S0030
Author(s):  
John Kwon ◽  
Tyler Gonzalez ◽  
Chris Miller ◽  
Shera Palmer Cook ◽  
David Thordarson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Initial Decision ◽  
Area Of Interest

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: The peer-review process is a rigorous process under which manuscripts are assessed for their overall scientific quality and is generally accepted as the highest standard of scientific scrutiny with regard to medical publishing. A common criticism regards the often disparate nature of reviewer recommendations when a decision is rendered which belies the supposed uniformity of the review process. The purpose of this investigation was to: (1) examine the historic level of agreement amongst reviewers for Foot & Ankle International (FAI) and (2) to assess variables which may influence agreement in order to improve the peer-review process. Methods: Approval to conduct this study was obtained from the Editorial Board of FAI. All manuscripts submitted to FAI during 2015 which underwent peer-review were included in the analysis. For each reviewed manuscript, demographic data was collected regarding specific reviewer and manuscript characteristics in a de-identified manner. Univariate analysis was performed. Results: 442 manuscripts underwent peer-review by 198 reviewers during the study period. During this time period, other papers were reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and rejected prior to being sent out for review. Of the 884 reviews performed, 339 (38%) recommended rejection, 353 (40%) recommended revision and resubmission and191(22%) recommended accept. Only 199 manuscripts (45%) had a decision rendered in which both reviewers agreed on the initial recommendation.The most common initial decision was rejection (52.7%) followed by revise and resubmit (42.8%). Only 20 manuscripts (4.5%) received an outright acceptance upon initial review. Comparing the agreeing versus disagreeing reviewers, there was no difference in demographic data such as reviewer age or experience. When examining key words (designated by reviewers as a particular area of interest within foot and ankle), there was no association between shared interests and level of reviewer agreement. Overall, for all reviewers, mean acceptance rate was19% (+/- 16%), mean reject rate 37% (+/- 20%) and mean revise 44% (+/- 19%). Conclusion: Regarding initial decision for publication in FAI, there was only 45% agreement amongst reviewers for manuscripts which underwent peer-review in 2015. However, no reviewer-specific variables examined in this investigation were found to correlate with agreement. Despite reviewers having similar interests in various aspects of foot and ankle surgery, this did not lead to an increased likelihood of agreement. Agreement and more uniform assessment of manuscripts by reviewers may be increased by specific education.

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.

Pitfalls and successes of peer review in neurosurgery

1997 ◽  
Vol 87 (6) ◽  
pp. 972-978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward R. Laws ◽  
T. Glenn Pait ◽  
John A. Jane
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Scientific Technical ◽  
Editorial Decisions ◽  
Fine Print

✓ As the first editor of the Journal of Neurosurgery, Louise Eisenhardt, acting with the advice of the editorial board, was responsible for making decisions on the acceptance or rejection of submitted manuscripts. Her log, covering the first 14 years of editorial decisions, is a record of neurosurgical progress and of the forces—scientific, technical and other—that shaped the field of neurosurgery. Any peer-review process is subject to pitfalls that become evident in retrospect, but an effective peer-review process is one of the basic ingredients of scientific progress. The decisions to accept or reject manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Neurosurgery during Eisenhardt's tenure are highlighted in this historical vignette.

scholarly journals Capacity Building in Peer-Review: a Student-led Journal Experience

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Letícia Nunes Campos ◽  
Angela Theresa Zuffo Yabrude ◽  
Samantha Sartore Duque Estrada Medeiros ◽  
Taiane do Socorro Silva Natividade ◽  
Bárbara Okabaiasse Luizeti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Student ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Previous Edition ◽  
Journal Editorial ◽  
Potential Strategy ◽  
Based Medicine

Abstract Introduction: Peer-review plays a pivotal role in optimizing the quality of research articles. However, new strategies need to be implemented in the peer-review system to enhance research rigor, accurate reporting, and data reliability, such as increasing diversity among the reviewers through the inclusion of undergraduate students as reviewers. We aim to report the peer-review policies, procedures, and practices of a medical student-led journal editorial board in 2020, specifically detailing the challenges and the role of the students in the peer-review process. Methods: Through validated online training courses and peer education methodology, the students built capacity regarding the relevance of peer-review, its models, structure, and the publication process. The peer-review process was blinded for authors and reviewers, emphasizing the importance of impartiality and the minimization of identification bias. Guidelines for authors and reviewers were developed to add standardization to the submission and review processes, based on journals’ recommendations and reporting guidelines. Results: From July to August of 2020, the student-led journal received 254 submitted manuscripts from all five Brazilian geographic regions, compared to the 72 submissions received in the previous edition. After review, 50 manuscripts were accepted with major or minor corrections. Discussion: Peer-review contributes to the construction of content, and is the foundation for evidence-based medicine. In addition, it improves ethical thinking, communication skills, and critical appraisal abilities, also desirable in the academic and professional spheres. The medical student peer-review process has numerous benefits and should be promoted and further studied as a potential strategy for building capacity in peer-review.

scholarly journals RETRACTION: Pain in systemic sclerosis

Reumatismo ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 120
Author(s):  
M.A. Cimmino
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Sclerosis ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Plagiarism Detection ◽  
Detection Software

To our readers: With deep regrets, we inform that the article Pain in systemic sclerosis (DOI: https:// doi.org/10.4081/reumatismo.2014.764), which has been published in Reumatismo (2014; 66(1): 44-47), contains verbatim text plagiarized from another paper. The manuscript must be considered as retracted.On behalf of the Editorial Board of Reumatismo, I apologize to the Author of the manuscript whose text was plagiarized by Stisi et al. that this was not picked up in the peer review process. I also apologize to the affected journal for the violation of copyright due to plagiarism. Reumatismo is uncompromising in its commitment to scientific integrity. When credible evidence of misconduct is brought to our attention, our commitment to the scientific record and to our readership requires immediate notification. Reumatismo is increasingly employing sophisticated software to detect plagiarism. Other journals use similar tools. Authors should be aware that most journals routinely employ plagiarism detection software, and that any plagiarism is likely to be detected.Marco A. CimminoEditor-in-ChiefReumatismo

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document