http://songings.com/EditorialPolicies.html

Songings ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-33
Author(s):  
Anhuai Yu
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Medical Journals

Besides Songings creates and keeps the Songings’s Standard (please see Songings Manuscript Types and Instructions) as the life saver standard for poems, Songings also creates and keeps the Songings’s Peer Review for all poems submitted and need entering the peer review process. For all Poem Reviews and Opinions, we take the experts peer review process the same as we take in our medical journals (please see EBC and EBC journals).

scholarly journals Peer Review Process in Medical Journals

2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 372 ◽  
Author(s):  
Young Gyu Cho ◽  
Hyun Ah Park
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Medical Journals

Blind versus Nonblind Review: Survey of Selected Medical Journals

1988 ◽  
Vol 22 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 601-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Cleary ◽  
Bruce Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Select Group ◽  
Lengthy Process

The publication of scientific research in medical journals is a lengthy process. Submitted manuscripts are often reviewed by two or more outside reviewers who evaluate each manuscript for publication acceptability. The process of manuscript evaluation by an editor-selected reviewer (“peers” or “referees”) is termed “peer review.” One issue involving the peer-review process is the use of blind versus nonblind referees. The purpose of this survey was to determine the percentage of a select group of medicine-related journals that blind their reviewers. We surveyed 114 English language journals. Journal editors were sent a survey that asked two questions: (1) are the referees who review your manuscripts blinded to the identity of the authors? and (2) is the editor blinded to the identity of the authors until after the review of the manuscripts is complete? Ninety-six of 114 (84.2 percent) surveys were returned. Ten journals published invited manuscripts only and were excluded from the survey. Only 18.6 percent (16 of 86) of the journals currently blind referees. None of the journals' editors were blind to the identity of the manuscripts' authors.

Getting Involved in the Peer Review Process

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenya Malcolm ◽  
Allison Groenendyk ◽  
Mary Cwik ◽  
Alisa Beyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

Reference Conundrum: The Broad Definition of Peer-Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Fullerton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
The Core ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Reference Interactions ◽  
Definition Of

For years, the gold-standard in academic publishing has been the peer-review process, and for the most part, peer-review remains a safeguard to authors publishing intentionally biased, misleading, and inaccurate information. Its purpose is to hold researchers accountable to the publishing standards of that field, including proper methodology, accurate literature reviews, etc. This presentation will establish the core tenants of peer-review, discuss if certain types of publications should be able to qualify as such, offer possible solutions, and discuss how this affects a librarian's reference interactions.

Judges and defendants

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianfranco Pacchioni
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Contemporary Science ◽  
The Social ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Scientific Publishers

This chapter explores how validation of new results works in science. It also looks at the peer-review process, both pros and cons, as well as scientific communication, scientific journals, and scientific publishers. We give an assessment of the total number of existing journals with peer review. Other topics discussed include the phenomenon of open access, predatory journals and their impact on contemporary science, and the market of scientific publications. Finally, we touch on degenerative phenomena, such as the market of co-authors, bogus papers, and irrelevant and wrong studies, as well as the problem and the social cost of irreproducible results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document