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 Students ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
7Th Edition ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Previous Edition ◽  
Journal Editorial ◽  
Ethical Communication

Abstract Introduction: Peer review plays a pivotal role in optimizing articles’ quality. However, in a context of poor methodological publications and unreliable data, it is questionable which strategies to invest in to improve peer reviewing. An excellent start is by enhancing diversity through inclusion of undergraduate students to reviewers. We aim to report the peer reviewing policies, procedures, and practices of a medical student-led journal editorial board in 2020, detailing the challenges and the role of students in building capacity in peer review. Methods: Through validated online training courses and peer education methodology, the students built capacity regarding the relevance of peer review, its models, structure, and publication process. The journal peer-reviewing was blinded for authors and reviewers, pursuing impartiality and minimization of identification bias. To add standardization to the submission and review processes, guidelines for authors and reviewers were developed, based on journals’ recommendations, and reporting guidelines. Results: The journal had 254 submitted manuscripts from all five Brazilian geographic regions during the second semester of 2020, a considerable increase compared to the 72 submissions in the previous edition. After reviewing, 50 articles were accepted to the Brazilian Medical Students’ 7th edition, demanding minor or major corrections.Discussion: Peer review contributes to the construction of content, standing for evidence-based medicine. Besides, it improves ethical, communication, and critical appraisal abilities, also desirable in the academic and professional spheres. Among the benefits and limitations of this medical students' peer review process, there is an interesting strategy to be studied and further promoted.

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 New Media for Science: Key Features of Platforms with Open Peer Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-38
Author(s):  
Angelina Gorbunova ◽  
Ivan Zassoursky ◽  
Nataliia Trishchenko
Keyword(s):  
New Media ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Digital Media ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Technological Modernization ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Time Required

The article deals with open peer reviewing as a new way of verifying results of researches in the scientific sector of digital media. The technological modernization of scientific publishers provides for solving some of the problems of the traditional peer reviewing. This explains the topicality of the study. The authors analyzed ten platforms with open peer review that are based in Europe, the USA and Canada. According to the results, a formally similar open peer review process may vary depending on the scope of authority a scientific community has, reviewers’ identification, authors’ opportunities to propose an expert, the degree of review openness, posting the revised versions, and involvement of the editorial board if any. The tools that the platforms use to encourage the scientific community to participate in commenting and reviewing the publications also matter. One of the key advantages of open peer reviewing is reducing the time required for publishing an article, which is crucial for some scientific fields.

scholarly journals Peer Review in Law Journals

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jadranka Stojanovski ◽  
Elías Sanz-Casado ◽  
Tommaso Agnoloni ◽  
Ginevra Peruginelli
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Traditional Approach ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Chi Square

The field of law has retained its distinctiveness regarding peer review to this day, and reviews are often conducted without following standardized rules and principles. External and independent evaluation of submissions has recently become adopted by European law journals, and peer review procedures are still poorly defined, investigated, and attuned to the legal science publishing landscape. The aim of our study was to gain a better insight into current editorial policies on peer review in law journals by exploring editorial documents (instructions, guidelines, policies) issued by 119 Croatian, Italian, and Spanish law journals. We relied on automatic content analysis of 135 publicly available documents collected from the journal websites to analyze the basic features of the peer review processes, manuscript evaluation criteria, and related ethical issues using WordStat8. Differences in covered topics between the countries were compared using the chi-square test. Our findings reveal that most law journals have adopted a traditional approach, in which the editorial board manages mostly anonymized peer review (104, 77%) engaging independent/external reviewers (65, 48%). Submissions are evaluated according to their originality and relevance (113, 84%), quality of writing and presentation (94, 70%), comprehensiveness of literature references (93, 69%), and adequacy of methods (57, 42%). The main ethical issues related to peer review addressed by these journals are reviewer’s competing interests (42, 31%), plagiarism (35, 26%), and biases (30, 22%). We observed statistically significant differences between countries in mentioning key concepts such as “Peer review ethics”, “Reviewer”, “Transparency of identities”, “Publication type”, and “Research misconduct”. Spanish journals favor reviewers’ “Independence” and “Competence” and “Anonymized” peer review process. Also, some manuscript types popular in one country are rarely mentioned in other countries. Even though peer review is equally conventional in all three countries, high transparency in Croatian law journals, respect for research integrity in Spanish ones, and diversity and inclusion in Italian are promising indicators of future development.

scholarly journals Mixed Method Study Examines Undergraduate Student Researchers’ Knowledge and Perceptions About Scholarly Communication Practices

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 159
Author(s):  
Melissa Goertzen
Keyword(s):  
Data Management ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Undergraduate Student ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Student Researchers ◽  
Communication Practices ◽  
The Impact

A Review of: Riehle, C. F., & Hensley, M. K. (2017). What do undergraduate students know about scholarly communication?: A mixed methods study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 17(1), 145–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.2017.0009 Abstract Objective – To examine undergraduate student researchers’ perception and understanding of scholarly communication practices and issues. Design – Mixed method study involving a survey and semi-structured interviews. Setting – Two major undergraduate universities in the Midwest region of the United States. Subjects – Undergraduate students who participated in or had completed undergraduate research experiences with faculty mentors. Method – The method was first approved by Institutional Review Board offices at both campuses involved in the study. Then, students received invitations to participate in a survey via email (Campus 1 = 221 students; Campus 2 = 345 students). Identical online surveys ran separately on each campus; both remained open for a period of three weeks. All respondents received a reminder email one week before the survey closed. Participants answered twelve questions related to demographics and scholarly communication practices. The survey examined knowledge and experience across five areas: the peer review process, author and publisher rights, publication and access models, impact of research, and data management. All students who completed the survey were entered in a drawing for a $50 Amazon card. The response rates were 34.8% (Campus 1) and 18.6% (Campus 2). Surveys on both campuses were administered using different software: campus 1 utilized Qualtrics survey software while campus 2 used an institution-specific survey software. Data sets were normed and merged later in the study to enable comparison and identify broad themes. Survey respondents were also invited to participate in a 15 to 20 minute follow-up interview and were compensated with a $20 Amazon gift card. The interviews consisted of four open-ended questions that further examined students’ knowledge of scholarly communication practices. The researchers coded interview transcripts and identified themes. Qualitative software was used to analyze the surveys and assess coder agreement. Finally, connections and anomalies between survey and interview results were explored. Main Results – Quantitative and qualitative data collected during the study indicate that students were most confident in their understanding of the peer-review process and data management but felt less confident in their knowledge of author and publisher rights, publication and access models, and determining the impact of scholarly research publication. In addition, they value instruction related to scholarly communication topics like the peer-review process, publication models, and data management. However, few students feel confident in their current level of knowledge or ability surrounding the previously mentioned topics. Study findings suggest that this knowledge gap is based on a lack of training or discussion of scholarly communication topics in relation to students’ research activities. Results also suggest that undergraduate students have difficulty articulating their rights as authors and their scholarly communication practices. In many cases, skill sets like data management are learned through trial and error while students progress through the research process. In some cases, faculty mentors have misperceptions and assumptions about undergraduate students’ knowledge and abilities regarding scholarly communication practices. This can create challenges for undergraduate students as they attempt to make informed decisions about research activities based on a limited foundation of experience or information. Finally, results indicate that undergraduate student researchers do not currently view the library as a place to learn about scholarly communication practices. The authors suggest that by forming strategic relationships with undergraduate research program directors, faculty, and graduate student mentors, librarians are in a prime position to incorporate scholarly communication practices into information literacy sessions or provide point-of-need coaching. Conclusion – The researchers conclude that academic libraries are in a unique position to support overarching research, teaching, and learning goals within the academic community. By developing programs that support information literacy and scholarly communication, libraries demonstrate value and align goals with teaching and learning priorities within the higher education community as a whole. Through this work, librarians support students as knowledge creators and advocate for training that emphasizes data literacy, copyright and authors’ rights, and the impact of research within specific disciplines.

scholarly journals Thank you reviewers- CytoJournal 2007

CytoJournal ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinod B Shidham ◽  
Barbara F Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Peer Reviewing

Significant efforts, time, and resources are devoted for peer-reviewing numerous CytoJournal manuscripts. The Editorial Board of CytoJournal shares a significant proportion of this activity. Additional peers are requested to join periodically as ‘academic editors’ and reviewers to review CytoJournal manuscripts. We thank all the reviewers and academic editors for their time and efforts for completing the peer-review of CytoJournal manuscripts during 2006. The continued success of this important academic exercise depends on their continued enthusiasm to support with their highest standards. We also thank all the contributing authors for selecting CytoJournal and supporting open access initiative, which allows retention of the copyrights to their corresponding academic accomplishments.

scholarly journals The Problem with Peer Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bård Smedsrød ◽  
Erik Lieungh
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Individual Researcher ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Publishing Houses ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The University ◽  
Insight Into

In this episode professor at UIT - The Arctic University of Norway, Bård Smedsrød, gives us an insight into peer review. How does the system work today, and what's problematic with it? Smedsrød also offers some solutions and encourages Universities to be much more involved in the peer review process. The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh. You can also read Bård's latest paper on peer reviewing: Peer reviewing: a private affair between the individual researcher and the publishing houses, or responsibility of the university? This episode was first published 2 November 2018.

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 On peer reviewing: how to nourish an author’s mind and win a JLDHE editor’s heart

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleanor Loughlin ◽  
Alicja Syska ◽  
Gita Sedghi ◽  
Christina Howell-Richardson
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Good Publication ◽  
Seminar Series ◽  
Learning Development

Editors and publishers of scholarly journals rarely agree on what makes for a good publication; they do, however, agree on the need for a robust peer review process as a crucial means to judge the merits of potential publications. While fraught with issues and inefficiencies, a critical and supportive peer review is not only what editors rely on when assessing scholarship presented for publication but also what authors hope for in order to improve their work. Understanding how peer review may best serve all parties involved: authors, editors, and reviewers, is thus at the heart of this article. The analysis offered here is based on a session the Journal for Learning Development in Higher Education editors gave at the 2020 LD@3 seminar series, entitled ‘The Art of Reviewing’. It explores the different aspects of the peer review process while formulating recommendations regarding best practices and outlining JLDHE initiatives for supporting reviewers’ vital work.

scholarly journals The Rise of Predatory Journals in Foot and Ankle Surgery: Propitious or Detrimental?

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 2473011420S0009
Author(s):  
Adeshina Adeyemo ◽  
Umur Aydogan
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Ankle Surgery ◽  
Online Archive

Category Other Introduction/Purpose: In the world of foot and ankle surgery, much like other surgical fields, research has always been a strong foundation for advancing the field and making strides into improving our knowledge base, perfecting surgical techniques and discovering ways of improving patient outcomes. In recent years, there has been the advent of predatory journals in orthopaedic surgery, though many clinicians may not be familiar with what predatory journals are. The aim of our study is to objectively analyze F&A surgery predatory journals and compare them to higher impact journals in F&A surgery and dispute whether or not predatory journals are beneficial or detrimental to the field of F&A. Methods: Our inclusion criteria involved all existing foot and ankle journals that were considered to be predatory according to Beall’s criteria. Our authors viewed Beall’s online archive, in addition to a recent publication by Yang et al (4), in which we were able to gather a list of several predatory journals related to the field of foot and ankle surgery. After discussion with the authors, it was decided to select three of the higher impact well-known foot and ankle journals to use as a comparison to the predatory journals. The journals that were selected were the Foot and Ankle International journal (AOFAS), Foot and ankle specialist, and the European Foot and ankle specialist (EFAS). Many journal demographics factors (ISSN, peer review process, PubMed indexig, etc) were compared between both types of journals. Results: Of 7 predatory journals, only 2 (28.6%) responded to an online message in regard to the demographics of their journal. Of the journals that responded, none of the journals directly answered all of the questions that were asked. Only 4 of the 7 journals (57%) disclosed their impact factor, and they ranged from 1.508 to 2.52. 2 journals (28.6%) had an editorial board, while one (14%) did not have an editorial board. Information regarding the editorial board was unable to be gathered from 4 journals, as they did not respond to online messages. 4 journals disclosed an article processing fee ranging from $360-$2145. Conclusion: With financial incentives and job promotions being based on research publications, more and more predatory journals are being created to allow authors in the field to publish. However, this rise in predatory journals is detrimental. With a lack of a thorough peer review for some journals, sky-high article processing fees, and hidden peer review processes, these journals are a threat to the next generation of researchers who are not savvy in literature review. We must make a push to have more stringent criteria to critique and index articles.

Engaged and Interactive Peer Review: Introducing Peer Review Circles

RELC Journal ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 475-482
Author(s):  
Shaun Justin Manning ◽  
Todd Jobbitt
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Peer Feedback ◽  
Literature Circles ◽  
Classroom Task ◽  
Classroom Data

This article introduces Peer Review Circles (PRC), a classroom task that fully engages learners in the peer review process. The authors had observed their undergraduate students were reluctant to do peer review and even more reluctant to use the comments received. To improve the peer review process, the authors decided to change it into a multi-party oral, opinion gap task. Mimicking literature circles, we put students into teams of three and asked them to follow an expanding sequence of Monologue-Dialogue- Discussion (MDD) to discuss each essay. First, one reviewer gave a brief monologue about the writing, then another reviewer joined in and they had a dialogue about the writing while the writer remained silent. Finally, only after listening to the monologue and dialogue could the writer enter the discussion to ask the reviewers about what was said, get further feedback, or explain themselves more fully. This article first explains how to run a PRC and then justifies doing PRCs by using classroom data that demonstrates how interaction during the MDD sequence refines peer feedback from vague/general to specific/detailed and encourages peer review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document