scholarly journals Open Journal System: enabling student-led journals

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-193
Author(s):  
Cheryl Hurkett

Open Journal Systems (OJS) is an open access, online manuscript management system developed by the Public Knowledge Project (https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/) that underpins the University of Leicester’s academic journal system. Initially released in 2001 OJS provides a complete and robust software solution that integrates and tracks all aspects of manuscript processing from the initial author paper submission, via dissemination of articles to peer reviewers, through to final online publication and indexing (Willinsky, 2005). This review will consider how OJS can be used to enhance teaching and learning through creating an authentic peer review process for students and will also offer some personal insights into the practicalities of using OJS from an Editor’s perspective. 

MedPharmRes ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Tuan Tran ◽  

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tran Diep Tuan President of University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, Department of Pediatrics - UMP Since our founding in 1947, the University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City (UMP) has consistently worked hard to be a well-established and highly ranked university in Vietnam and the region. We aspire to provide a healthy scientific environment for our students, faculty and researchers. UMP is committed to advance scientific research and innovation, providing our community with the necessary tools in order to achieve these aspirations. The MedPharmRes journal represents a major step that UMP has undertaken to provide a stage for academics to spread, promote, discuss their ideas and research. MedPharmRes is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal that is dedicated to publishing cutting-edge research that will help and promote change in the practice of medicine. We believe that science should be available to everyone and to prevent any limitations in the publishing process, UMP will sponsor publication associated fees between 2017 and 2018. This will allow academics from all backgrounds to submit for publication in our Journal. MedPharmRes applies high standards towards the peer- review process to ensure strict standards in methodological design and valid results. We emphasize the accuracy of research methodology and high ethical standards. Our live online, blinded review process will allow both reviewers and authors to discuss the manuscript which will allow fair and accurate review of the submission, ensuring that the journal’s high standards are met. In this inaugural issue, we would like to thank all the editorial and peer reviewers for their efforts. We hope that academics from around the world will choose to publish their research in this Journal, in order to promote high quality research, contributing to the development and advancement of of medical practice in Vietnam and around the world.


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Bishnu Bahadur Khatri

Peer review in scholarly communication and scientific publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In the growing interest of scholarly research and publication, this paper tries to discuss about peer review process and its different types to communicate the early career researchers and academics.This paper has used the published and unpublished documents for information collection. It reveals that peer review places the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of scientific publishing. It is the system used to assess the quality of scientific research before it is published. Therefore, it concludes that peer review is used to advancing and testing scientific knowledgeas a quality control mechanism forscientists, publishers and the public.


Author(s):  
Ann Blair Kennedy, LMT, BCTMB, DrPH

  Peer review is a mainstay of scientific publishing and, while peer reviewers and scientists report satisfaction with the process, peer review has not been without criticism. Within this editorial, the peer review process at the IJTMB is defined and explained. Further, seven steps are identified by the editors as a way to improve efficiency of the peer review and publication process. Those seven steps are: 1) Ask authors to submit possible reviewers; 2) Ask reviewers to update profiles; 3) Ask reviewers to “refer a friend”; 4) Thank reviewers regularly; 5) Ask published authors to review for the Journal; 6) Reduce the length of time to accept peer review invitation; and 7) Reduce requested time to complete peer review. We believe these small requests and changes can have a big effect on the quality of reviews and speed in which manuscripts are published. This manuscript will present instructions for completing peer review profiles. Finally, we more formally recognize and thank peer reviewers from 2018–2020.


F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Giordan ◽  
Attila Csikasz-Nagy ◽  
Andrew M. Collings ◽  
Federico Vaggi

BackgroundPublishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications.MethodsHere we examine an element of the editorial process ateLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions toeLifesince June 2012, of which 2,750 were sent for peer review, using R and Python to perform the statistical analysis.ResultsThe Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and 5 days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). There was no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates for published articles where the Reviewing Editor served as one of the peer reviewers.ConclusionsAn important aspect ofeLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1193 (1) ◽  
pp. 011001

As the Chairman of the 9th edition of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference (MESIC 2021) held in Gijόn (Spain) from 23 to 25 of June 2021, I have the honour to present the papers discussed at the conference by researchers and professionals from 18 different countries. This ninth edition was organized by the Manufacturing Engineering Area of the University of Oviedo on behalf of the Manufacturing Engineering Society (SIF). The conference was first held in Calatayud (Spain) in 2005, with the main objective of becoming a forum for the exchange of experiences between national and international researchers and professionals in the field of Manufacturing Engineering. The rest of the editions have been celebrated up to now with this same vocation. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (MSE) publishes here the 140 papers, organised according to the topics of the Conference, that were finally accepted for presentation at the MESIC 2021 after a rigorous peer review process. List of Committees Organizing Committee, Scientific Committee, Editors, Organizer, Promoter and Sponsors and this titles are available in this pdf.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malte Elson ◽  
Markus Huff ◽  
Sonja Utz

Peer review has become the gold standard in scientific publishing as a selection method and a refinement scheme for research reports. However, despite its pervasiveness and conferred importance, relatively little empirical research has been conducted to document its effectiveness. Further, there is evidence that factors other than a submission’s merits can substantially influence peer reviewers’ evaluations. We report the results of a metascientific field experiment on the effect of the originality of a study and the statistical significance of its primary outcome on reviewers’ evaluations. The general aim of this experiment, which was carried out in the peer-review process for a conference, was to demonstrate the feasibility and value of metascientific experiments on the peer-review process and thereby encourage research that will lead to understanding its mechanisms and determinants, effectively contextualizing it in psychological theories of various biases, and developing practical procedures to increase its utility.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damian Pattinson

In recent years, funders have increased their support for early sharing of biomedical research through the use of preprints. For most, such as the COAlitionS group of funders (ASAPbio 2019) and the Gates foundation, this takes the form of active encouragement, while for others, it is mandated. But despite these motivations, few authors are routinely depositing their work as a preprint before submitting to a journal. Some journals have started offering authors the option of posting their work early at the point at which it is submitted for review. These include PLOS, who offer a link to BiorXiv, the Cell journals, who offer SSRN posting through ‘Sneak Peak’, and Nature Communications, who offer posting to any preprint and a link from the journal page called ‘Under Consideration’. Uptake has ranged from 3% for the Nature pilot, to 18% for PLOS (The Official Plos Blog 2018). In order to encourage more researchers to post their work early, we have been offering authors who submit to BMC Series titles the opportunity to post their work as a preprint on Research Square, a new platform that lets authors share and improve their research. To encourage participation, authors are offered a greater amount of control and transparency over the peer review process if they opt in. First, they are given a detailed peer review timeline which updates in real time every time an event occurs on their manuscript (reviewer invited, reviewer accepts etc). Second, they are encouraged to share their preprint with colleagues, who are able to post comments on the paper. These comments are sent to the editor when they are making their decision. Third, authors can suggest potential peer reviewers, recommendations which are also passed onto the editor to vet and invite. Together, these incentives have had a positive impact on authors choosing to post a preprint. Among the journals that offer this service, the average opt-in rate is 40%. This translates to over 3,000 manuscripts (as of July 2019) that have been posted to Research Square since the launch of the service in October 2018. In this talk I will demonstrate the functionality of Research Square, and provide demographic and discipline data on which areas are most and least likely to post.


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Deniz Ozcan

Dear Readers, It is the great honor for us to publish Volume 9, Issue 1 of Contemporary Educational Researches Journal (CERJ). The journal welcomes original empirical investigations and comprehensive literature review articles focusing on educational issues. The journal is an international peer-refereed journal that promotes the researches in the field of contemporary teaching and learning approaches and theories. A total number of seventeen (17) manuscripts were submitted for this issue and each paper has been subjected to double-blind peer review process by the reviewers specialized in the related field. At the end of the review process, a total number of six (6) high quality research papers were selected and accepted for publication.   Aim of this issue is to give the researchers an opportunity to share the results of their academic studies. There are different research topics discussed in the articles. The topics of the next issue will be different. You can make sure that we will be trying to serve you with our journal with a rich knowledge in which different kinds of topics are discussed in 2019 Volume. I would like to present many thanks to all the contributors who helped to publish this issue. Best regards,  


F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Giordan ◽  
Attila Csikasz-Nagy ◽  
Andrew M. Collings ◽  
Federico Vaggi

BackgroundPublishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications.MethodsHere we examine an element of the editorial process ateLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions toeLifesince June 2012, of which 2,747 were sent for peer review. This subset of 2747 papers was then analysed in detail.  ResultsThe Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and five days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). Moreover, editors acting as reviewers had no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates.ConclusionsAn important aspect ofeLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Devin R. Berg

This is a white paper submitted as part of the joint NIH/NSF-funded event, "Imagining Tomorrow’s University: Rethinking scholarship, education, and institutions for an open, networked era", to be held March 8th and 9th in Rosemont, IL. In this paper I present my personal (not my employer's) thoughts and reflections on the role that open research can play in defining the purpose and activities of the university. I have made some specific recommendations on how I believe the public university can recommit and push the boundaries of its role as the creator and promoter of public knowledge. In doing so, serving a vital role to the continued economic, social, and technological development of society. I have also included some thoughts on how this applies specifically to my field of engineering and how a culture of openness and sharing within the engineering community can help drive societal development.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document