scholarly journals Academic Publishing and the Referees' Reports: A Genre-Based Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (40) ◽  
pp. 559-588
Author(s):  
Sawsan Kareem Zghayyir Al-Saaidi ◽  
Abdul-Ameer Hassan Al-Ubaidi
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Veterinary Medicine ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Structural Organization ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Rp Process ◽  
Negative Comments ◽  
Cognitive Structuring ◽  
Academic Genre

        Peer review (RP) process as an academic genre is a pivotal step to certify the research quality to be published by enhancing peer perspectives and imparting credibility. The aim of this paper is to scrutinise the formal, cognitive structuring, the significant evaluative features and pragmatic value. To address this aim, a framework based on Bhatia’s (1993) cognitive structuring model and Fortanet's (2008) model of moves is adopted to analyse two referees' reports from two various disciplines namely Social Sciences and Veterinary Medicine solicited from Iraqi academicians. The findings unravel that there is a special format that followed by referees in their reports concerning the balanced use of positive/ negative comments along with the structural organization adopted. The generic structuring of the two analysed reports includes four paramount moves that are similar despite they are from two different disciplines. In addition, the most notably comments assigned by referees' reports are content related defects which are amalgamated with the use of language written.

scholarly journals Automatically detecting open academic review praise and criticism

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 1057-1076
Author(s):  
Mike Thelwall ◽  
Eleanor-Rose Papas ◽  
Zena Nyakoojo ◽  
Liz Allen ◽  
Verena Weigert
Keyword(s):  
Sentiment Analysis ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Systematic Bias ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Test Corpus ◽  
Sentiment Lexicon ◽  
Negative Comments ◽  
Sentiment Detection ◽  
Academic Review

PurposePeer reviewer evaluations of academic papers are known to be variable in content and overall judgements but are important academic publishing safeguards. This article introduces a sentiment analysis program, PeerJudge, to detect praise and criticism in peer evaluations. It is designed to support editorial management decisions and reviewers in the scholarly publishing process and for grant funding decision workflows. The initial version of PeerJudge is tailored for reviews from F1000Research's open peer review publishing platform.Design/methodology/approachPeerJudge uses a lexical sentiment analysis approach with a human-coded initial sentiment lexicon and machine learning adjustments and additions. It was built with an F1000Research development corpus and evaluated on a different F1000Research test corpus using reviewer ratings.FindingsPeerJudge can predict F1000Research judgements from negative evaluations in reviewers' comments more accurately than baseline approaches, although not from positive reviewer comments, which seem to be largely unrelated to reviewer decisions. Within the F1000Research mode of post-publication peer review, the absence of any detected negative comments is a reliable indicator that an article will be ‘approved’, but the presence of moderately negative comments could lead to either an approved or approved with reservations decision.Originality/valuePeerJudge is the first transparent AI approach to peer review sentiment detection. It may be used to identify anomalous reviews with text potentially not matching judgements for individual checks or systematic bias assessments.

scholarly journals Acknowledgement to Reviewers of Social Sciences in 2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 16
Author(s):  
Social Sciences Editorial Office
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
High Quality

Rigorous peer-review is the corner-stone of high-quality academic publishing [...]

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.

scholarly journals Acknowledgement to Reviewers of Philosophies in 2018

Philosophies ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
High Quality

Rigorous peer-review is the corner-stone of high-quality academic publishing [...]

scholarly journals How to Talk to Your Friends and Colleagues About Replication

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Plucker ◽  
Matthew C. Makel
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Educational Psychology ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Psychology Research ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
The Social

Replicability and the importance of enhanced research rigor are foundational issues across the social sciences, and educational psychology is no exception. Yet strategies for increasing research quality are not widespread in the field, including the use of replication studies. In this manuscript, we examine the nature and scope of replication problems in educational psychology research, and how these issues threaten research integrity and transparency. We also examine strategies to mitigate these problems in educational psychology. Finally, we discuss several on-going challenges that contribute to replication problems, and which need additional attention from researchers.

scholarly journals Reviewer Acknowledgements

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 90
Author(s):  
William Oscar
Keyword(s):  
Veterinary Medicine ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Balearic Islands ◽  
Open University ◽  
State University ◽  
University Of Tennessee ◽  
Catholic University ◽  
Contemporary Education ◽  
Metropolitan College

International Journal of Contemporary Education (IJCE) would like to acknowledge the following reviewers for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Many authors, regardless of whether IJCE publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers. Their comments and suggestions were of great help to the authors in improving the quality of their papers. Each of the reviewers listed below returned at least one review for this issue.Reviewers for Volume 1, Number 1 Alexandra Ingram, University of Tennessee, USAArvind Sharma, Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, IndiaBruna Gabriela Augusto Marçal Vieira, Universidade Estadual Paulista, BrazilCarme Pinya, University of Balearic Islands, SpainCristina Simões, Portuguese Catholic University, PortugalFederica Cornali, University of Turin, ItalyFroilan Delute Mobo, Philippine Merchant Marine Academy, PhilippinesGiuseppe Maugeri, Ca' Foscari University, ItalyIonel Bondoc, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Iasi, RomaniaIosif Fragkoulis, Hellenic Open University, GreeceJavier Fombona, Univ. Oviedo, SpainMakrina Nina Zafiri, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, GreeceNesrin Ozturk, Ege University, TurkeyNilgün Tosun, Trakya University, TurkeySaid K. Juma, The State University of Zanzibar, FinlandSandro Sehic, Oneida BOCES, USAVassiliki Pliogou, Metropolitan College of Thessaloniki, Greece     William OscarEditorial AssistantInternational Journal of Contemporary Education---------------------------------------------------------Redfame Publishing9450 SW Gemini Dr. #99416Beaverton, OR 97008, USATel: 1-503-828-0536 ext. 509Fax: 1-503-828-0537E-mail: [email protected]: http://ijce.redfame.com

scholarly journals Reviewer Acknowledgements

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 94
Author(s):  
Ellery Willianms
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Veterinary Medicine ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Bulgarian Academy ◽  
Catholic University ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Business And Management

Business and Management Studies (BMS) would like to acknowledge the following reviewers for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Many authors, regardless of whether BMS publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers. Their comments and suggestions were of great help to the authors in improving the quality of their papers. Each of the reviewers listed below returned at least one review for this issue.Reviewers for Volume 4, Number 4 Andrzej Niemiec, Poznań University of Economics and Business, PolandAshford Chea, Benedict College, USAFábio Albergaria de Queiroz, Catholic University of Brasília, BrazilFlorin Peci, University of Peja, KosovoHung-Che Wu, Nanfang College of Sun Yat-sen University, ChinaIulia Cristina Muresan, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaJason Caudill, King University, USAJulia Stefanova, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, BulgariaLucie Andreisová, University of Economics in Prague, CzechMichael Okoche, University of South Africa, UgandaMike Rayner, University of Portsmouth, UKOzgur Demirtas, Inonu University, TurkeyRocsana Tonis, Spiru Haret University, RomaniaZeki Atıl Bulut, Dokuz Eylul University, TurkeyZoran Mastilo, University of East Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina         Ellery WillianmsEditorial AssistantOn behalf of,The Editorial Board of Business and Management StudiesRedfame Publishing9450 SW Gemini Dr. #99416Beaverton, OR 97008, USAURL: http://bms.redfame.com

scholarly journals Understanding and Evaluating Research and Scholarly Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH)

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Sivertsen
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Knowledge Creation ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Empirical Concept ◽  
Complete Representation ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
The Social ◽  
Limited Coverage ◽  
Holistic Manner

Abstract Internationalization is important for research quality and for specialization on new themes in the social sciences and humanities (SSH). Interaction with society, however, is just as important in these areas of research for realizing the ultimate aims of knowledge creation. This article demonstrates how the heterogenous publishing patterns of the SSH may reflect and fulfill both purposes. The limited coverage of the SSH in Scopus and Web of Science is discussed along with ideas about how to achieve a more complete representation of all the languages and publication types that are actually used in the SSH. A dynamic and empirical concept of balanced multilingualism is introduced to support combined strategies for internationalization and societal interaction. The argument is that all the communication purposes in all different areas of research, and all the languages and publication types needed to fulfill these purposes, should be considered in a holistic manner without exclusions or priorities whenever research in the SSH is evaluated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document