scholarly journals Editorial Note: Fast Peer Review: A Practice of Predatory Journals or Fair Treatment for Authors?

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (27) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Jovan Shopovski ◽  
Robert W. McGee ◽  
Daniel B. Hier
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Discipline ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Editorial Note ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
On Line

Despite its weaknesses, peer review is our best gatekeeper of rigorous science. With the advent of on-line and open-access publishing, a vigorous debate has ensued over the timeliness of peer review. Many of us remember, and some still face, long peer review and publishing timeframes. Ware and Mabe (2015) estimated that a reviewer needs from several hours to a day to carefully prepare a peer review. Even so, the time from submission to first decision varies from 8 weeks to 18 weeks and varies by academic discipline and journal. Although the slowness of the peer review process has been critiqued (Lotriet, 2012), long ingrained processes have been slow to change. The development of the open access publishing has brought to the forefront the need to speed the peer review process and reduce the time to publication. However, short peer review times have been cited as one of the hallmarks of predatory journals (Cobey at al. 2018). Some have suggested that a faster and more agile peer review process may undermine the quality of published research (Bagdasarian et al. 2020).

scholarly journals Predatory publishing in management research: A call for open peer review

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (5) ◽  
pp. 607-619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonhard Dobusch ◽  
Maximilian Heimstädt
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Governance Mechanism ◽  
Management Research ◽  
New Governance ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Predatory Publishing

Predatory journals have emerged as an unintended consequence of the Open Access paradigm. Predatory journals only supposedly or very superficially conduct peer review and accept manuscripts within days to skim off publication fees. In this provocation piece, we first explain how predatory journals exploit deficiencies of the traditional peer review process in times of Open Access publishing. We then explain two ways in which predatory journals may harm the management discipline: as an infrastructure for the dissemination of pseudo-science and as a vehicle to portray management research as pseudo-scientific. Analyzing data from a journal blacklist, we show that without the ability to validate their claims to conduct peer review, most of the 639 predatory management journals are quite difficult to demarcate from serious journals. To address this problem, we propose open peer review as a new governance mechanism for management journals. By making parts of their peer review process more transparent and inclusive, reputable journals can differentiate themselves from predatory journals and additionally contribute to a more developmental reviewing culture. Eventually, we discuss ways in which editors, reviewers, and authors can advocate reform of peer review.

scholarly journals Iranian Mental Health Researchers & Predatory Journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 260-263
Author(s):  
Seyed Mohammad Hossein Mahmoodi ◽  
◽  
Amir Hossein Jalali Nadoushan ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Substantial Contribution ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Publication ◽  
Financial Gain

Predatory journals exploit open access publication method; they do not carry out the peer review process and editorial assessment properly and publish unassessed articles for financial gain. According to a recent investigation published in the Lancet Psychiatry Journal, about 20% of authors or co-authors of articles published in predatory psychiatric journals have been Iranian. This substantial contribution needs attention and seems to be compatible with previous studies inspecting involvement of other academics from Iran in predatory publications.

scholarly journals Editor's Welcome

KIMIKA ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Florecita De Guzman
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Laboratory Experiments ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Undergraduate Research ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Instructional Materials ◽  
Primary Research ◽  
On Line ◽  
Industry Trends

Warmest welcome to our dear colleagues!We reintroduce you to KIMIKA, the Philippine journal for the chemical sciences. KIMIKA has taken a new look, and has reworked its focus to better reflect the research, industrial and academic efforts of chemistry practitioners in the country. We have expanded KIMIKA’s scope to include papers dealing with primary research results, scientific reviews, rapid communications, innovations in teaching, technical commentaries, instructional materials, novel laboratory experiments, industry trends, and policy papers. In succeeding issues, we also plan to have a section that features outstanding undergraduate research efforts.KIMIKA is now published by the Philippine Federation of Chemical Societies, and we hope that our expanded coverage will draw a wider base of readers and contributors of publishable material. To save printing costs and better manage our financial limitations, we have done away with paper copies and have adopted the open source, on-line format. A happy consequence of this is that submissions can be emailed anytime. Papers received will be subjected to peer review, and if accepted, will be copy-edited and uploaded immediately for on-line publication.We invite you to publish your work in KIMIKA. Rest assured that all papers published in KIMIKA are subjected to a peer review process that ensures the quality of published work.May we also take this opportunity to invite you to our workshop on scientific writing during the 28th Philippine Chemistry Congress in 2013?

scholarly journals Say ‘Yes!’ to peer review: Open Access publishing and the need for mutual aid in academia

2017 ◽  
Vol 195 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Springer ◽  
Myriam Houssay-Holzschuch ◽  
Claudia Villegas ◽  
Levi Gahman
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Corporate Control ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Mutual Aid ◽  
Open Access Journals

Scholars are increasingly declining to offer their services in the peer review process. There are myriad reasons for this refusal, most notably the ever-increasing pressure placed on academics to publish within the neoliberal university. Yet if you are publishing yourself then you necessarily expect someone else to review your work, which begs the question as to why this service is not being reciprocated. There is something to be said about withholding one’s labour when journals are under corporate control, but when it comes to Open Access journals such denial is effectively unacceptable. Make time for it, as others have made time for you. As editors of the independent, Open Access, non-corporate journal ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, we reflect on the struggles facing our daily operations, where scholars declining to participate in peer review is the biggest obstacle we face. We argue that peer review should be considered as a form of mutual aid, which is rooted in an ethics of cooperation. The system only works if you say ‘Yes’!

scholarly journals Peer-review process in journals dealing with chemistry and related subjects published in Serbia

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 491-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Dekanski ◽  
Ivana Drvenica ◽  
Olgica Nedic
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Professional Recognition ◽  
Quality Of Reports ◽  
On Line ◽  
Line Process ◽  
General Data ◽  
Peer Review Procedure

A survey was conducted among editors of journals publishing in the field of chemistry, chemical technology and related topics in Serbia, aiming to collect information on their experience, problems and difficulties during peer-review process. Editors from 22 journals out of 27 which regularly published during 2015 replied. General data on journals were collected from responses obtained from editors-in-chief, whereas all editors (including sub-editors and section editors) participated in a questionnaire concerning peer-review procedure. Additionally, they were asked to evaluate quality of reports and attitude of reviewers, discuss present situation and suggest measures to improve peer-review process. Greatest problems encountered by editors in peer-review process can be summarized as follows: low rate of acceptance to review, low quality of reports, sometimes due to reviewer?s bias or his/her inability to properly understand review process. A method used to search for reviewers does not substantially influence quality of reports. Editors agree that introduction of On-Line process and creation of precise instructions for reviewers, education of potential reviewers, as well as social, public and professional recognition and appreciation of reviewers? work, are the most important measures to improve quality of peer-review process and, consecutively, quality of published articles and journals.

scholarly journals Support for Good Peer Review in OJS-based Journals

Ravnetrykk ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aysa Ekanger ◽  
Solveig Enoksen
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Institutional Service ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Work Done

How can a library publishing service with limited resources help editorial teams of peer-reviewed journals in their work? This paper focuses on the technical aspects of the peer review workflow that, if set up and adhered to properly, can contribute to improving the standard of the peer review process – and to some degree also the quality of peer review. The discussion is based on the work done at Septentrio Academic Publishing, the institutional service provider for open access publishing at UiT The Arctic University of Norway.

scholarly journals Debatt om røvertidsskrift

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 20-35
Author(s):  
Eva Sauvage ◽  
Siv Olsen
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Predatory Publishing

Predatory journals –a debate Introduction: The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten revealed extensive problems with predatory publishing in an article that led to headlines in Norwegian news media in August 2018. Many were concerned about how the rise of open access journals had led to the growth of publishers with uncertain peer review processes, and worried about the consequences this may have for the public trust in science. A few weeks later, the Norwegian government joined the European Coalition S, which aims to mandate researchers who receive grants from the Research Council to publish in gold open access journals.  Method: Qualitative content analysis Results: Researchers are deeply concerned about public trust in science. The debate displayed a clearly either pro and con opinions towards open access publishing, and researchers are especially concerned about the peer review process. Some actors believe there is a strong connection between open access and predatory journals. Other actors blame the international competition and pressure to publish as a cause for the rise of predatory publishing. Some actors applaud the radical transformation of scientific publishing and of the peer review process, while others fear this development. Discussion: We discuss how this may affect research support at university libraries. Coalition S faced great opposition among the majority of Norwegian researchers, while the librarians who participated in the debate were in unison positive. The challenges of predatory publishers may intensify in the years to come with the introduction of Coalition S and a radical reorganization of scientific publishing. Conclusion: The debate shows that there is a clear need for a "white list" of peer-reviewed and quality-assured publishing channels, where the Nordic list is a good start.  Librarians have special expertise on metadata formats and knowledge about information literacy that can help researchers with quality assessment.

scholarly journals Awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons – results from an online survey in Germany

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke Maurer ◽  
Nike Walter ◽  
Tina Histing ◽  
Lydia Anastasopoulou ◽  
Thaqif El Khassawna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Trauma Surgery ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Trauma Surgeons

Abstract Background Along with emerging open access journals (OAJ) predatory journals increasingly appear. As they harm accurate and good scientific research, we aimed to examine the awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Methods In an online survey between August and December 2019 the knowledge on predatory journals and OAJ was tested with a hyperlink made available to the participants via the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) email distributor. Results Three hundred fifty orthopaedic and trauma surgeons participated, of which 291 complete responses (231 males (79.4%), 54 females (18.6%) and 5 N/A (2.0%)) were obtained. 39.9% were aware of predatory journals. However, 21.0% knew about the “Directory of Open Access Journals” (DOAJ) as a register for non-predatory open access journals. The level of profession (e.g. clinic director, consultant) (p = 0.018) influenced the awareness of predatory journals. Interestingly, participants aware of predatory journals had more often been listed as corresponding authors (p < 0.001) and were well published as first or last author (p < 0.001). Awareness of OAJ was masked when journal selection options did not to provide any information on the editorial board, the peer review process or the publication costs. Conclusion The impending hazard of predatory journals is unknown to many orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Early stage clinical researchers must be trained to differentiate between predatory and scientifically accurate journals.

scholarly journals The Quality of Statistical Reporting and Data Presentation in Predatory Dental Journals Was Lower Than in Non-Predatory Journals

Entropy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 468
Author(s):  
Pentti Nieminen ◽  
Sergio E. Uribe
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Data Presentation ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Highly Cited

Proper peer review and quality of published articles are often regarded as signs of reliable scientific journals. The aim of this study was to compare whether the quality of statistical reporting and data presentation differs among articles published in ‘predatory dental journals’ and in other dental journals. We evaluated 50 articles published in ‘predatory open access (OA) journals’ and 100 clinical trials published in legitimate dental journals between 2019 and 2020. The quality of statistical reporting and data presentation of each paper was assessed on a scale from 0 (poor) to 10 (high). The mean (SD) quality score of the statistical reporting and data presentation was 2.5 (1.4) for the predatory OA journals, 4.8 (1.8) for the legitimate OA journals, and 5.6 (1.8) for the more visible dental journals. The mean values differed significantly (p < 0.001). The quality of statistical reporting of clinical studies published in predatory journals was found to be lower than in open access and highly cited journals. This difference in quality is a wake-up call to consume study results critically. Poor statistical reporting indicates wider general lower quality in publications where the authors and journals are less likely to be critiqued by peer review.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document