scholarly journals RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FOR INDUSTRIAL SUSTAINABILITY

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meltem Ezgi DURGUN ◽  
Evren ALGIN YAPAR ◽  
Mehmet KOCA
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Industrial Development ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
Iso 14001 ◽  
Experimental Development ◽  
Industrial Sustainability ◽  
Development Technology ◽  
Review Reports

Industrial development and continuity, which are indispensable for countries, depend on sustainability, which can be defined as Permanent Capability. In the basic steps of industrial sustainability, there are social, economic, and environmental factors. ISO 14001, 14004, 14005, and26000 regarding sustainability are important standards in this field. Research & Development and Technology Transfer are among the main factors that foster industrial development and continuity. Research & Development has three basic steps; it includes basic research, applied research, and experimental development, and its most important output is innovation. The industrial application of innovation or its transfer is possible with Technology Transfer, and this systematic process consists of five steps: providing the most suitable technology source to determine the most suitable option, selecting the optimum technology, having the necessary equipment and license, transferring knowledge and experience, and ensuring maximum benefit. Training and measurements are required to manage the process and for the internalization of the transferred technology. In this context, this review provides a basic and brief view of Research & Development, Technology Transfer, and Sustainability concepts and interactions, which are critical for the pharmaceutical industry.                      Peer Review History: Received: 1 May 2021; Revised: 12 June; Accepted: 27 June, Available online: 15 July 2021 Academic Editor: Dr. Ali Abdullah Al-yahawi, Al-Razi university, Department of Pharmacy, Yemen, [email protected] UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency.  Received file:                Reviewer's Comments: Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 6.5/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 7.5/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Dr. Govind Vyas, Compliance & Regulatory Officer Inva-Tech Pharmaceuticals LLC, New-Jersey, USA, [email protected] Dr. Mohammad Bayan,  Faculty of Pharmacy, Philadelphia University, P.O. Box: 1 Philadelphia University 19392 Jordan, [email protected]

scholarly journals AN OVERVIEW ON CURRENT REGULATION AND EVALUATION OF BIOCIDAL PRODUCTS

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aslı ŞAHİNER ◽  
Evren ALGIN YAPAR
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Chemical Substance ◽  
Biological Action ◽  
Insect Repellents ◽  
Biocidal Products ◽  
Unique System ◽  
Natural Oil ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
E Mail ◽  
Biocidal Product

A biocidal product is a substance or mixture prepared to limit, destroy, neutralize or control the effects of a harmful microorganism, plants and animals. The active substance in a biocidal product can be a natural oil or extract, a chemical substance or a microorganism, virus or fungus. Biocides consist of four main groups: disinfectants, preservatives (wood, paint, etc.), pest control and other type of biocidal products. A biocidal substance can also be added to a product to make the product itself into a biocidal product. These products range from disinfectants, hand sanitizers, preservatives, insect repellents, to rodenticides and insecticides and are used to protect humans, animals, materials and articles by controlling the intended target organism by a chemical or biological action. To make sure the use of biocidal products do not have unacceptable risks for people, animals and the environment, they are regulated to control their marketing, sale and use. In the current study biocidal products have been overviewed in the scope of current European Union regulations, product types and conformity tests. Peer Review History: UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency. Received file Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 5.0/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 7.0/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Name: Dr. Barkat Ali Khan Affiliation: Kampala International University , Uganda E-mail: [email protected]   Name: Dr. Sally A. El-Zahaby Affiliation: Pharos University in Alexandria, Egypt E-mail: [email protected] Comments of reviewer(s):

scholarly journals FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF PHARMACEUTICALY STABLE SERUM OF DUCHESNEA INDICA (ARBENAN)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Mumtihanah Mursyid ◽  
Risda Waris
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Leaf Extract ◽  
Ethanolic Extract ◽  
Ethanol Extract ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
Unique System ◽  
Duchesnea Indica ◽  
Leaf Powder ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Stable Leaf

Objective: Arbenan (Duchesnea indica) plants contain saponins, flavonoids, and tannins which have antioxidant activity. The purpose of this research is to perform formulation and evaluation extract ethanol of Arbenan leaves in the form of serum which is pharmaceutically stable. Method: Arbenan leaf powder was macerated with ethanol solvent, and then left for 3-4 days while stirring repeatedly, and then filtering. Furthermore, the liquid ethanol extract that has been obtained is evaporated using a Rotary Vacum Evaporator was used to evaporate the extract. Prepared extract was used to evaluate various parameters like organoleptics, homogeneity, viscosity, and pH. Result: All formulations were having typical smell, light brown color and a little thick consistency. Formulations of leaf extract of Arabenan with four variations bases have shown to have good stability after stress condition. It can be seen from the evaluation result are organoleptics, homogeneity, viscosity, rheology, and pH. Conclusion: Study concludes that a stable leaf extract of Arabenan can be effectively formulated into a serum by the means of various bases.                                     Peer Review History: Received 8 January 2021; Revised 13 February; Accepted 4 March, Available online 15 March 2021 UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency.  Received file:                Reviewer's Comments: Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 5.0/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 7.0/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Dr. Marwa A. A. Fayed,  University of Sadat City, Egypt, [email protected] Prof. Dr. Ali Gamal Ahmed Al-kaf,  Sana'a university, Yemen, [email protected] Ahmad Najib, Universitas Muslim Indonesia, Makassar, Indonesia, [email protected] Similar Articles: PHYTOCHEMICAL, ANTI-INFLAMMATORY, ANALGESIC, ANTIPYRETIC AND ACUTE TOXICITY OF PSIADIA PUNCTULATA GROWING IN YEMEN ANTIHYPERLIPIDEMIC EFFECT OF THE ETHANOLIC EXTRACT OF SCAEVOLA TACCADA (GAERTN) ROXB. LEAVES ETHNOBOTANY, PHYTOCHEMISTRY AND PHARMACOLOGY OF OCHNA SCHWEINFURTHIANA: A REVIEW

scholarly journals No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Serge P J M Horbach
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Scientific Enterprise ◽  
Considerable Impact ◽  
Editorial Decision ◽  
Evaluation Mechanism ◽  
Reader Comments ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Review Model ◽  
Editorial Decisions

Abstract The global Covid-19 pandemic has had considerable impact on the scientific enterprise, including scholarly publication and peer review practices. Several studies have assessed these impacts, showing among others that medical journals have strongly accelerated their review processes for Covid-19 related content. This has raised questions and concerns regarding the quality of the review process and the standards to which manuscripts are held for publication. To address these questions, this study sets out to assess qualitative differences in review reports and editorial decision letters for Covid-19 related, articles not related to Covid-19 published during the 2020 pandemic, and articles published before the pandemic. It employs the open peer review model at the British Medical Journal and eLife to study the content of review reports, editorial decisions, author responses, and open reader comments. It finds no clear differences between review processes of articles not related to Covid-19 published during or before the pandemic. However, it does find notable diversity between Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 related articles, including fewer requests for additional experiments, more cooperative comments, and different suggestions to address too strong claims. In general, the findings suggest that both reviewers and journal editors implicitly and explicitly use different quality criteria to assess Covid-19 related manuscripts, hence transforming science’s main evaluation mechanism for their underlying studies and potentially affecting their public dissemination.

scholarly journals Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035604
Author(s):  
Cecilia Superchi ◽  
Darko Hren ◽  
David Blanco ◽  
Roser Rius ◽  
Alessandro Recchioni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Version ◽  
Report Quality ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Definition Of

ObjectiveTo develop a tool to assess the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research.MethodsWe conducted an online survey intended for biomedical editors and authors. The survey aimed to (1) determine if participants endorse the proposed definition of peer-review report quality; (2) identify the most important items to include in the final version of the tool and (3) identify any missing items. Participants rated on a 5-point scale whether an item should be included in the tool and they were also invited to comment on the importance and wording of each item. Principal component analysis was performed to examine items redundancy and a general inductive approach was used for qualitative data analysis.ResultsA total of 446 biomedical editors and authors participated in the survey. Participants were mainly male (65.9%), middle-aged (mean=50.3, SD=13) and with PhD degrees (56.4%). The majority of participants (84%) agreed on the definition of peer-review report quality we proposed. The 20 initial items included in the survey questionnaire were generally highly rated with a mean score ranging from 3.38 (SD=1.13) to 4.60 (SD=0.69) (scale 1–5). Participants suggested 13 items that were not included in the initial list of items. A steering committee composed of five members with different expertise discussed the selection of items to include in the final version of the tool. The final checklist includes 14 items encompassed in five domains (Importance of the study, Robustness of the study methods, Interpretation and discussion of the study results, Reporting and transparency of the manuscript, Characteristics of peer reviewer’s comments).ConclusionAssessment of Review reports with a Checklist Available to eDItors and Authors tool could be used regularly by editors to evaluate the reviewers’ work, and also as an outcome when evaluating interventions to improve the peer-review process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document