scholarly journals Editorial Note

Spectrum ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Spectrum Editorial Board
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Student ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Editorial Note ◽  
Recent Issue ◽  
Late Fall ◽  
Time Issue

To support our authors, reviewers and editors during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Spectrum Editorial Board has relaxed its timelines for the publication of this most recent issue (Issue 5).  We are working with our authors on their Issue 5 submissions, and will publish continuously into Issue 5 over the remainder of Summer 2020.  Please check back often for new articles, which will be added to Issue 5 as they are finalized.  At this time, Issue 6 (Fall 2020) submissions are in the review process, and we anticipate publication in late fall, as we transition to a new editorial team.   If you are an undergraduate or graduate student interested in joining the Spectrum editorial team for 2020-2021, we encourage you to submit your application here, by July 31, 2020. Peer Reviewer applications are accepted year-round - see the “Become a Reviewer” page for more information.   We thank our authors, reviewers, and readers for their patience and continued support, and we hope you enjoy the latest issue!  The Spectrum Editorial Board

scholarly journals Editorial Notes VOL 5, No 2 (2015)

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Solberg Søilen
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Rejection Rate ◽  
Editorial Note ◽  
The World ◽  
Intelligence Studies

EDITORIAL NOTE VOL 5, NO 2 (2015)It is always a pleasure to realize, at the time of writing this editorial note, that the articles published by JISIB come from many parts of the world and from many industries. This is not intentionally - even though we strive for diversity - as we do not know what articles actually make it through the review process for each issue. Our rejection rate is now more than 80%. Some see that as a sign of quality.  In this issue of JISIB we publish three articles on Intelligence Studies presented at the ECKM 2015 conference. There is also an article by Oubrich et al. presented at the AIM 2015 conference. In addition ASA du Toit gives an updated analysis of the Intelligence Studies field.As always we would first of all like to thank the authors for their contributions to this issue of JISIB.On behalf of the Editorial Board, Sincerely Yours,

scholarly journals Editorial note

2000 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-213
Author(s):  
Robert Borsley ◽  
Nigel Fabb ◽  
Maggie Tallerman
Keyword(s):  
Editorial Team ◽  
Editorial Note ◽  
University Of Edinburgh ◽  
The University

With this issue of the Journal Ian Roberts steps down from the editorial team. He has been an editor since 1994 and we are most grateful for all he has done for the Journal. He becomes a member of the Editorial Board, and we look forward to receiving his advice. Ian's place as an editor is taken by Caroline Heycock of the University of Edinburgh. We are very pleased to welcome her to the editorial team.

Clinical Science in the 1990s

1990 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
M. J. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Molecular Level ◽  
Short Interval ◽  
Clinical Science ◽  
Molecular Medicine ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Real Progress ◽  
General Journal

From this issue, Clinical Science will increase its page numbers from an average of 112 to 128 per monthly issue. This welcome change — equivalent to at least two manuscripts — has been ‘forced’ on us by the increasing pressure on space; this has led to an undesirable increase in the delay between acceptance and publication, and to a fall in the proportion of submitted manuscripts we have been able to accept. The change in page numbers will instead permit us now to return to our exceptionally short interval between acceptance and publication of 3–4 months; and at the same time we shall be able not only to accept (as now) those papers requiring little or no revision, but also to offer hope to some of those papers which have raised our interest but come to grief in review because of a major but remediable problem. Our view, doubtless unoriginal, has been that the review process, which is unusually thorough for Clinical Science, involving a specialist editor and two external referees, is most constructive when it helps the evolution of a good paper from an interesting piece of research. Traditionally, the papers in Clinical Science have represented some areas of research more than others. However, this has reflected entirely the pattern of papers submitted to us, rather than any selective interest of the Editorial Board, which numbers up to 35 scientists covering most areas of medical research. Arguably, after the explosion during the last decade of specialist journals, the general journal can look forward to a renaissance in the 1990s, as scientists in apparently different specialities discover that they are interested in the same substances, asking similar questions and developing techniques of mutual benefit to answer these questions. This situation arises from the trend, even among clinical scientists, to recognize the power of research based at the cellular and molecular level to achieve real progress, and at this level the concept of organ-based specialism breaks down. It is perhaps ironic that this journal, for a short while at the end of the 1970s, adopted — and then discarded — the name of Clinical Science and Molecular Medicine, since this title perfectly represents the direction in which clinical science, and therefore Clinical Science, is now progressing.

Editorial

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-2
Author(s):  
Chris Roseveare ◽  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Service Improvement ◽  
Single Individual ◽  
National Goal ◽  
Acute Medicine ◽  
North West ◽  
The Past

Clinicians working in acute medicine will be familiar with change. The speciality and the environment we work in has changed continually over the past 15 years – I often reflect that no two years have been the same since I started working in the field back in 1999. Change is important, in order to achieve best practice, but sustaining such improvements can be an enormous challenge. The regular turnover of medical staff, local management restructuring and the constantly shifting National goal posts often conspire against us. It is easy for ‘changefatigue’ to set in. Submissions to this journal often describe local audits and service improvement projects which have raised standards: a low baseline may result in a statistically significant improvement from a relatively small intervention – often an education programme or poster campaign to raise awareness of the problem. However, what happens next is far more important: can the improvement be sustained when the key driver behind the project – the enthusiast – moves on, after their 4 month block of acute medicine comes to an end? One year on, we are often back where we started. Two articles in this edition appear to have achieved the Holy Grail of sustainability. In the paper by Joanne Botten from Musgrove Park, door to antibiotic time was improved for patients with neutopaenic sepsis by introducing a system whereby the antibiotics could be administered without waiting for a prescription to be written. The combination of a neutropaenic sepsis alert card and a patient-specific direction empowered the nurses and patients to ensure administration within an hour of arrival in over 90% of cases, a figure which has been sustained for over a year. Sustainable change is often facilitated by modifications in paperwork, but crucially the project’s success was not reliant on a single individual. The value of engaging with the wider team is also shown in Gary Misselbook’s paper describing sustained improvement in the layout and utility of an AMU procedure room. The authors describe how repeated attempts by different registrars had failed to achieve more than temporary reorganisation; the change was only sustained when nursing, infection control and administrative staff became involved in the process. The multiprofessional nature of the AMU is one of its greatest assets – we would all do well to remember this when instigating change. On a similar note, observant readers may have noticed some changes to the editorial board of this journal – I am delighted to welcome Dr Tim Cooksley, acute physician from Manchester and Dr Prabath Nanayakkara from the VUMC in the Netherlands. Tim came through the acute medicine training programme in the North West and his role in the acute oncology service at the Christie Hospital as well as his active involvement in the SAMBA project over recent years brings an important perspective to the editorial team. Prabath has been heavily involved with the development of acute medicine in the Netherlands and co-hosted the successful SAMSTERDAM meeting in 2014. His international perspective will be welcome as we attempt to extend the reach of Acute Medicine to our European neighbours over the coming years. I am very grateful to Nik Patel, Mark Jackson and Ashwin Pinto for their help and support during the past decade and wish them well for the future.

Editorial Note - Vol. 15., No. 2, 2021

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Lemnitzer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Discussion Forum ◽  
Editorial Note ◽  
Case Histories ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Technical Content ◽  
New Type

Welcome to Issue 2 of DFI’s Journal Vol. 15. We are happy to introduce six publications which span a wide mix of manuscript types and technical content. While most published papers in the DFI Journal have historically been research papers and technical case histories, this issue introduces a forum paper and a book review in addition to valuable research publications. Forum papers, a new type of paper to the DFI Journal, encompass a much shorter manuscript style, and can include commentaries, opinions, research highlights (e.g., of work currently underway), and responses to previously published papers. Forum papers do not require a response from the author if they discuss another author’s manuscript. However, should the forum paper be closer to a discussion, and should the author of the discussed manuscript desire to provide a response, the submission will be converted into a formal “discussion.” Forum papers and book reviews first undergo a review within the editorial board, and are only subject to external peer review if the content is found to be technically controversial and/or should the area of expertise discussed in the manuscript lie outside the capacities of the editorial board. Hence the Forum Paper is a unique outlet with much technical and editorial flexibility and will, along with the newly introduced book review, enrich the palette of products offered by the DFI Journal.

Publishing quantitative careers research: challenges and recommendations

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bert Schreurs ◽  
Angus Duff ◽  
Pascale M. Le Blanc ◽  
Thomas H. Stone
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Team Member ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Insight Into

Purpose This article aims to provide prospective authors guidelines that will hopefully enable them to submit more competitive manuscripts to journals publishing careers research.Design/methodology/approach Based on their experience as an author, reviewer and editorial team member, the authors identify the main criteria that a quantitative study must meet to be considered for publication in international peer-reviewed journals covering career-related topics. They emphasize the importance of contributing to the careers literature and of designing the study in accordance with the research question.Findings Manuscripts are rejected because they are insufficiently innovative, and/or because sample, instruments and design are not appropriate to answer the research question at hand. Cross-sectional designs cannot be used to answer questions of mediation but should not be discarded automatically since they can be used to address other types of questions, including questions about nesting, clustering of individuals into subgroups, and to some extent, even causality.Originality/value The manuscript provides an insight into the decision-making process of reviewers and editorial board members and includes recommendations on the use of cross-sectional data.

A Welcome Note from the Editor

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dr. Ayisha Shabbir
Keyword(s):  
Quality Standards ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Biomedical Journal ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
High Quality ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Exciting Time

I am delighted and proud to welcome you to the second issue of Volume 2. Each article receivedand accepted is an important contribution to the already existing knowledge in the field of BiomedicalSciences. All the editorial team is excited about the progress of PBMJ as an international journal. Aseditor, I would like to express my heartiest congratulation to the team and welcome to the authors andreaders. I am also grateful to the advisory board and managing editors. I hope that PBMJ can promote theacademic and applicable research and improve the research activities and collaborations.I am aware of the bumps along the way, but we are determined to keep pursuing the research goalsto meet the high quality standards and move forward with great courage. If you have any suggestions toimprove, you may write to us as a reader. In the age of technology, I can actively conversate with thereaders and get their feedback to improve the quality with their valuable input.PBMJ will continue to serve the Biomedical Sciences as an outlet for high-quality research. This isan exciting time for the journal and we look forward to working with authors, the Editorial board and theteam to make PBMJ as a leading source for work in the space.Dr. Ayisha ShabbirEditorPakistan BioMedical Journal

scholarly journals Letter from the editor

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Angel Huerta
Keyword(s):  
Baja California ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Remote Communication ◽  
Digital Format ◽  
Set Up

Dear contributors: After 5 consecutive years as editor-in-chief of Ciencias Marinas, Dr. Alejandro Cabello Pasini has now abdicated this position to undertake other academic projects at the Autonomous University of Baja California (Mexico). This change in editorship concurs with the 45th anniversary of the establishment of Ciencias Marinas and marks the beginning of a new phase in the growth and development of our scholarly journal. The editorial team has thus far completed many projects, such as updating our publishing platform, all aimed to improve journal presentation, visibility, and accessibility. It has now taken the first steps in transitioning from an electronic publishing format to a completely digital format, and it will continue to work hard to guarantee that Ciencias Marinas continues evolving. Over these past 45 years Ciencias Marinas has been a conduit for the professional and inclusive delivery of sound scientific information on the four disciplines of marine science (biology, physics, geology, and chemistry). At the moment we are focusing on strengthening our international support system to reach higher publishing standards. To achieve this goal, we are expanding, refining, and updating our editorial board, which now includes even more international experts with outstanding academic careers. We will continue to expand our editorial board by extending additional invitations to other experts who wish to collaborate in this project that is Ciencias Marinas, and we hope to soon welcome new member to our board. I would now like to take the opportunity to thank previous editors-in-chief for their contributions, which have elevated our journal to its current position. Their contributions give me a great advantage to further improve the quality of the journal products. I am also thankful to the members of the editorial board, who have provided much support by efficiently and professionally managing the editorial processes of our submissions. As a result of this work, our list of reviewers has significantly increased in number and quality, and this will reflect on the quality of the papers we publish. We are working our way to better our remote communication with the editorial board so we can jointly establish new publication strategies aimed to improve the quality of our journal and its impact in the scientific community. I want to thank the Autonomous University of Baja California for all the support it has provided over these past 45 years for the upkeep of the journal. My thanks go to the editorial office administration staff, who have done and continue doing an excellent job, and to the reviewers, the readers, and the authors, because without them this journal would not be what it is today. We will keep working with everyone to continually improve Ciencias Marinas, and we hope we continue receiving your contributions. In the meantime, please feel free to visit our website and check our new journal cover and other new things we have set up you. Sincerely, Miguel Angel Huerta Díaz Editor-in-chief  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document