Volume 9, Issue 2, Formation

The editors of the Iraqi Journal of Embryos and Infertility Researches (IJEIR) are thankful to the huge efforts made by the reviewers in peer- reviewing the submitted manuscripts. Thanks to their efforts the second issue of the 9th volume is now available online with open access to the articles content. We are looking forward in inclusion in relevant indexing in the near future. We would like to acknowledge the reviewers for their contribution, and we wish them the greatest success. We ensured the anonymity of both reviewers and authors and followed a double-blind peer-review procedure. Our published articles are under the creative common attribution license. We strictly followed the COPE ethical code in the published studies. Our articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Download Full-text

Volume 9, Issue 1, Formation

Iraqi Journal of Embryos and Infertility Researches ◽

10.28969/ijeir.v9.i1.e1 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

pp. e1-e10

Author(s):

Taif Alawsi ◽

Hayder A. L. Mossa

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Peer Review ◽

Ethical Code ◽

Double Blind ◽

Creative Commons ◽

Review Procedure ◽

Near Future ◽

Peer Review Procedure

The editors of the Iraqi Journal of Embryos and Infertility Researches (IJEIR) are thankful to the huge efforts made by the reviewers in peerreviewing the submitted manuscripts. Thanks to their efforts the first issue of the 9th volume is now available online with open access to the articles content. We are looking forward in inclusion in relevant indexing in the near future. We would like to acknowledge the reviewers for their contribution, and we wish them the greatest success. We ensured the anonymity of both reviewers and authors and followed a double-blind peer-review procedure. Our published articles are under the creative common attribution license. We strictly followed the COPE ethical code in the published studies. Our articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Download Full-text

Volume 10, Issue 1, Formation

Iraqi Journal of Embryos and Infertility Researches ◽

10.28969/ijeir.v10.i1.e1 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

pp. e1-e10

Author(s):

Taif Alawsi ◽

Ula M. R. Al-Kawaz ◽

Hayder A. L. Mossa

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Peer Review ◽

Ethical Code ◽

Double Blind ◽

Creative Commons ◽

Review Procedure ◽

Near Future ◽

Peer Review Procedure

Download Full-text

Volume 10, Issue 2, Formation

Iraqi Journal of Embryos and Infertility Researches ◽

10.28969/ijeir.v10.i2.e1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. e1-e15

Author(s):

Taif Alawsi ◽

Ula Al-Kawaz

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Double Blind ◽

Online System ◽

Creative Commons ◽

Peer Reviewing ◽

Review Procedure ◽

Near Future ◽

Peer Review Procedure

In editors of the Iraqi Journal of Embryos and Infertility Researches (IJEIR) are thankful to the huge efforts made by the reviewers in peer reviewing the submitted manuscripts. Thanks to their efforts the second issue of the 10th volume is now available online with open access to the articles content. We are looking forward in inclusion in relevant indexing in the near future. We would like to acknowledge the reviewers for their contribution, and we wish them the greatest success. We ensured the anonymity of both reviewers and authors and followed a double-blind peer-review procedure. We strictly followed the COPE ethical code in the published studies. As of now, the IJEIR is published in new website https://ijeir.net/index.php/ijeir supported by the Open Journal Systems (OJS), therefore all the activities were strictly by the online system. Journal reviewers were given the proper credit via Publons (an online platform that promotes the peer review process). Currently, IJEIR is indexed in Google Scholar, Science gate, Crossref, Iraqi academic journals, Publons, Dimensions, LOCKSS, and CLOCKSS. Our articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License and the rights are with the authors which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Download Full-text

Why Academics Choose to Publish in a Mega-Journal

Journal of Education and Learning ◽

10.5539/jel.v6n4p348 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 6 (4) ◽

pp. 348

Author(s):

Jovan Shopovski ◽

Dejan Marolov

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Peer Review ◽

Online Survey ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Scientific Journal ◽

Review Procedure ◽

Peer Review Procedure ◽

Significant Factors

With their broad scope, high publishing volume, a peer review process based on the scientific soundness of the content, and an open access model, mega journals have become an important part of scholarly publishing.The main aim of this paper is to determine the most important factor that influenced researchers’ decisions to submit their academic work to these type of journal. To this end, an online survey has been disseminated from November 2016 to August 2017, targeting the corresponding authors of the European Scientific Journal, ESJ. Data from 413 corresponding authors was collected.The focus was mainly on how they discover the journal and what led them to submit a paper to the journal. However, questions concerning their satisfaction with the peer review procedure were also part of the survey.The results have shown that a recommendation of a colleague is not only the main channel through which authors found out about the journal, but is also the major reason they decided to submit their paper to a mega-journal. Furthermore, the quality of the editorial board of the journal, the strong portfolio of papers and the open access concept are also significant factors in encouraging submission to a mega-journal. A majority of the respondents are satisfied with the communication and peer review procedure of the mega-journal, which might encourage new submissions in the future.

Download Full-text

Peer review declaration

Journal of Physics Conference Series ◽

10.1088/1742-6596/2052/1/011002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2052 (1) ◽

pp. 011002

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Applied Mathematics ◽

Program Committee ◽

Academic Publishing ◽

Publication Ethics ◽

Plagiarism Detection ◽

Scientific Publications ◽

Double Blind ◽

Review Procedure ◽

Peer Review Procedure

The present document contains details on the procedure for reviewing the materials of the third International Scientific and Practical Conference MATHEMATICAL MODELING, PROGRAMMING AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS 2021. • The type of peer review is double blind peer review. • All the submitted materials, timely received by the conference e-mail [email protected], were considered by the program organizing committee. The program committee identified the reviewers who received the authors’ articles through the conference email. Each article was submitted to two independent peer reviewers with a scientific degree who did not know the name of the author (or the names of authors) of the article being reviewed. All articles submitted for consideration have passed the peer review procedure in accordance with the standards of editorial ethics, with international practice of editing, reviewing, publishing and authorship of scientific publications and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics –COPE. Plagiarism, improper borrowing, attempts to circumvent plagiarism detection, verbatim copying and paraphrasing of one’s own work (self-plagiarism) without proper justification, copyright infringement is considered unacceptable practices. All articles that have passed the peer review procedure are original works that have not been previously published in other publications in their current or similar form; they have not been reviewed in other editions. Materials of low scientific level are not accepted for publication. • The number of applications received is 105, of which 59 were accepted for work, the acceptance rate (number of applications accepted / number of applications received X 100) was 56%. • Average number of reviews per paper - 1,6. • The total number of reviewers involved is 40 experts in this particular subject area. • Additional information on the process of consideration of materials: only applications, the authors of which had corrected the substantiated comments of the reviewers, were accepted; the articles that received a negative review from the reviewer were excluded from the conference materials. The conference materials submission control system is presented on the official conference website at https://www.novsu.ru/dept/515278/i.454744/?id=1759423. • For inquiries please contact Dr. Oxana Fikhtner, Head of Academic Publishing Development centre of NovSU ([email protected]).

Download Full-text

Evolving landscape of scholarly journals in open access environment

Global Knowledge Memory and Communication ◽

10.1108/gkmc-10-2018-0085 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 68 (6/7) ◽

pp. 550-567

Author(s):

Sumeer Gul ◽

Sangita Gupta ◽

Tariq Ahmad Shah ◽

Nahida Tun Nisa ◽

Shazia Manzoor ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Peer Review ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Time Lag ◽

High Income ◽

Current Status ◽

Double Blind ◽

Content Type ◽

Finnish Meteorological Institute ◽

Open Access Journals

Purpose Open access journals (OAJs) offer immediate, free and unrestricted online access to the scholarly literature. The purpose of this study is to trace the status and characteristics of OAJs published across the globe. Various trends that have evolved in OAJ market have been studied. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on data collected from one of the largest OA journal directory – Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The data were downloaded on 02 January 2018 and details of OAJs added to DOAJ till 31 December 2018 were harvested, codified and further analyzed in SPSS software. A Microsoft-Excel template application – MAKESENS – developed by Finnish Meteorological Institute (Finland) in 2002, was explored to perform Mann–Kendall Test and Sen’s Slope Estimates. Findings A less score of OAJs offer access to their archival content. An increasing trend is witnessed in the OAJ publishing with Elsevier, Sciendo and BioMed Central (BMC) as the top publishers. Majority of publishers are from high-income zone countries, followed by upper-middle and lower-middle zone countries. Majority of OA publishers are from the UK, Indonesia and Brazil. A lesser score of journals offer article processing charges and/or author submission charges. Majority of OAJs from high- and lower-middle-income zone countries levy submission/processing charge to authors compared to OA journals from upper-middle- and lower-income zone countries (p < 0.01). OJS stays a prioritized platform for hosting OA journal content. Portico and CLOCKSS/LOCKSS are mostly used for long-term preservation purposes. Majority of OAJs from high-income zone countries participate in digital arching initiatives compared to ones from other income zones. Majority of the journals adopt a peer review (double-blind peer review, blind peer review, peer review and open peer review) process for validation of their scholarly content. The time lag between submission and publication ranges from one to 53 weeks, with majority of OAJs having a time lag of 11-20 weeks. Creative Commons Licenses are mainly adopted by OAJs. Research limitations/implications As the study is based on the data offered by DOAJ, any gaps in the DOAJ data will also get reflected in the study. Further, there might be other OAJs also that have yet to show compliance with DOAJ standards and get indexed with it. Originality/value The study tries to showcase the current status and characteristics of OAJs.

Download Full-text

The peer review procedure: some thoughts on the analysis and dissemination of good practices in the framework of the European Employment Strategy

Transfer European Review of Labour and Research ◽

10.1177/102425890601200305 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 12 (3) ◽

pp. 333-348 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Florence Lefresne

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Peer Review ◽

Good Practice ◽

The European Union ◽

Member States ◽

Good Practices ◽

Mutual Learning ◽

Community Model ◽

Review Procedure ◽

Peer Review Procedure

The purpose of the peer review programme - created in 1999, and in 2005 incorporated into the mutual learning programme of the European Employment Strategy - is to identify and evaluate good practices by Member States and to promote their transferability within the European Union. But is it possible to isolate a good practice and to transpose it? On the basis of specific examples this article draws attention to the numerous inconsistencies that emerge between the supposedly universal register of the EES and the great variety of national registers through which it is interpreted. These findings lead to an adjustment of the expectations placed in mutual learning. The article goes on to show that the identification of good practices reflects, in considerable measure, a wish on the part of the Member States to make their national employment policies appear legitimate, implicitly raising, at the same time, some questions about the actual feasibility of a Community model.

Download Full-text

Thank you reviewers- CytoJournal 2007

CytoJournal ◽

10.1186/1742-6413-4-4 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 4 ◽

pp. 4 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

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.

Download Full-text

Reviewing articles as a way of professional evaluation of scientific texts: organizational and ethical aspects

Knowledge and Performance Management ◽

10.21511/kpm.04(1).2020.03 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

pp. 26-36

Author(s):

Svitlana Fiialka ◽

Olga Trishchuk ◽

Nadija Figol

Keyword(s):

Higher Education ◽

Peer Review ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Scientific Journals ◽

Ethical Aspects ◽

Double Blind ◽

Scientific Texts ◽

Peer Reviewing ◽

Professional Evaluation ◽

Single Blind

The purpose of the paper is to summarize the organizational and ethical aspects, problems and prospects of peer reviewing. To do this, from September 2019 to January 2020, a survey of Ukrainian scientists registered in Facebook groups “Ukrainian Scientific Journals”, “Ukrainian Scientists Worldwide”, “Pseudoscience News in Ukraine”, “Higher Education and Science of Ukraine: Decay or Blossom?” and others was conducted. In total, 390 researchers from different disciplines participated in the survey. The results of the survey are following: 8.7% of respondents prefer open peer review, 43.1% – single-blind, 37.7% – double blind, 9.2% – triple blind, 1.3% used to sign a review prepared by the author. 75.6% of respondents had conflicts of interest during peer reviewing. 8.2 % of reviewers never reject articles regardless of their quality. Because usually only editors and authors see reviews, it can lead to the following issues: reviewers can be rude or biased; authors may not adequately respond to grounded criticism; editors may disregard the position of the author or reviewer, and journals may charge for publishing articles without proper peer review.

Download Full-text

Peer reviewing – a responsibility and a power of the university?

Septentrio Conference Series ◽

10.7557/5.3946 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Bård Smedsrød ◽

Eirik Reierth ◽

Lars Moksness ◽

Leif Longva

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Academic Freedom ◽

Peer Review ◽

Open Science ◽

Open Access Publishing ◽

Peer Reviewing ◽

Publishing Houses ◽

Commercial Publishing ◽

The University ◽

The Eu

Watch the VIDEO of the presentation.Journal coordinated peer reviewing, a hallmark of scholarly publishing, is also a pivotal part of other central academic processes, such as evaluation of research grant applications, and ranking of applicants for faculty/research positions. Hence, journal coordinated peer reviewing may be viewed as “the mother of academic peer reviewing”. On this background, it is astonishing that universities and other public R&D institutions take only a very limited interest in the management and policy shaping of this cornerstone of scholarly publishing.We suggest that the universities need to become more aware of the pivotal role of the peer reviewing jobs carried out by their professors and researchers. The peer reviewing should be viewed as a partial, in kind payment from the institutions involved to the journal publishers. The advantages of this are manifold: i) negotiating power that may lead to easier and quicker implementation of open access publishing and/or ii) reducing costs, in particular the unjustifiably high subscription and licensing rates set by the big commercial publishing houses; iii) better control of how scientific staff use their time for the good of the university; iv) managing a unified policy shaping of peer reviewing, reducing fraud and flaws. This will in turn increase quality of the research produced by the universities. The EU has recently announced their goal of making all European scientific articles freely accessible by 2020. This announcement was made unanimously by the EU ministers responsible for research and innovation. The ministers have not announced what means to use in achieving their announced goal. We suggest a united approach whereby taking control of the peer review job could be an interesting road to follow. Such a unified international action among universities and grant agencies would be very beneficial in order to make the changes needed to establish peer reviewing as a truly academically based responsibility. The increasing international agreements and actions to implement open access publishing are indications that such changes are possible. By standing together universities will be able to break the economic grip that the big commercial publishing houses have on academic research.Some may argue that it is the right of each individual scientist to decide on the extent and for what journal to perform peer reviewing. However, if an employer for some reason limits the amount of time used to do peer reviewing for certain commercial publishing houses, it would not interfere with the academic freedom to do research and to choose freely where and how to publish. After all, work contracts include instructions on how to perform a certain amount of teaching, administration and research. The option of directing where to do or not to do peer review should not be very controversial.By taking control of and organizing peer reviewing universities would obtain a means to regain the academic freedom that was lost when commercial enterprises took over the society driven journals, introducing heavy paywalls. And it may facilitate a development towards an open science regime.

Download Full-text