scholarly journals Analytic Review as a Solution to the Misreporting of Statistical Results in Psychological Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Kitchener Sakaluk ◽  
Alexander Williams ◽  
Monica Biernat
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Data File ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Review System ◽  
Efficient Manner ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Secondary Benefits ◽  
Analytic Review ◽  
Statistical Results

We propose analytic review as a solution to the problem of misreporting statistical results in psychological science. Analytic review requires authors submitting manuscripts for publication to also submit the data file and syntax used during analyses. Regular reviewers or statistical experts then review reported analyses, in order to verify that the analyses reported were actually conducted, and that the statistical values are accurately reported. We begin by describing the problem of misreporting in psychology, and then introduce the basic analytic review process. We then highlight both primary and secondary benefits of adopting analytic review, and describe different permutations of the analytic review system, each with its own strengths and limitations. We conclude by attempting to dispel three anticipated concerns about analytic review, namely: analytic review will increase the workload placed on scholars, analytic review will infringe on the traditional peer-review process, and analytic review will hurt the image of the discipline of psychology. Although implementing analytic review will add one more step to the bureaucratic publication process, we believe it can be implemented in an efficient manner that would greatly assist in decreasing the frequency and impact of misreporting, while also providing secondary benefits in other domains of scientific integrity.

scholarly journals RETRACTION: The biological mechanism involved in anticancer properties of amniotic membrane

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Camillo Porta
Keyword(s):  
Amniotic Membrane ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Biological Mechanism ◽  
Plagiarism Detection ◽  
Biological Mechanisms ◽  
Anticancer Properties ◽  
Detection Software

To our readers: With deep regrets, we inform our Readers that the article The biological mechanism involved in anticancer properties of amniotic membrane (DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/oncol.2020.429), which has been published in the current issue of Oncology Reviews (2020-1), contains verbatim text plagiarized from another paper.1 The manuscript must be considered as retracted. On behalf of the Editorial Board of Oncology Reviews, I apologize to the Author of the manuscript whose text was plagiarized by Ameneh Jafari, Hassan Niknejad, Mostafa Rezaei-Tavirani, Caitlin D’Amico, Hakimeh Zali that this was not picked up in the peer review process. I also apologize to the affected journal for the violation of copyright due to plagiarism. Unfortunately we were not able to detect it before publication due to the language of the original paper (Slovenian). Oncology Reviews is uncompromising in its commitment to scientific integrity. When credible evidence of misconduct is brought to our attention, our commitment to the scientific record and to our readership requires immediate notification. Oncology Reviews is increasingly employing sophisticated software to detect plagiarism. Other journals use similar tools. Authors should be aware that most journals routinely employ plagiarism detection software, and that any plagiarism is likely to be detected. Camillo Porta, Editor-in-Chief Oncology Reviews   Reference1. Ramuta TZ, Cirman T, Erdani Kreft M. Celično-biološki mehanizmi delovanja amnijske membrane proti raku in možnosti za njeno uporabo pri zdravljenju raka [Cell-biological mechanisms of amniotic membrane anticancer activity and the possibilities of its use in anticancer therapy]. Slovenian Medical Journal (Zdravniški vestnik) 2018;87(9-10):483-92. (DOI: 10.6016/ZdravVestn.2674).

scholarly journals Perspectives for early-career researchers on plagiarism and scientific integrity

FACETS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-25
Author(s):  
Robert G. Young ◽  
T. Fatima Mitterboeck
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Investigation ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Early Career Researchers

Lapses in scientific integrity, such as plagiarism, persist in the scientific realm. To be successful and contributory, early-career researchers (ECRs), including graduate students, need to be able to effectively navigate the literature, peer-review process, and scientific research with integrity. Here we discuss different aspects of scientific integrity related to ECRs. Our discussion centres on the concepts of plagiarism and intellectual property, predatory journals, aspects of peer review, transparency in publishing, and false advanced accreditations. Negative elements within these topics may be especially damaging to ECRs, who may be less familiar with the research landscape. We highlight the need for ECRs to approach scientific investigation cautiously and thoughtfully to promote integrity through critical thinking.

IMPROVING THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

2021 ◽  
pp. 82-83
Author(s):  
Oluwole Gbolagunte Ajao ◽  
Adekola Alao
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Administrative Positions ◽  
Selection Of

SUMMARY: The peer review process has been regarded as an essential part of accepting or rejecting a paper for publication since 1752 when the process was started by The Royal Society of London in the publication entitled “Philosophical Transactions”. In developing countries, one of the primary reasons for submitting pieces for publication is to support promotion in universities. In fact, the argument can be made that the only reason for publishing in developing countries is for faculty promotion. Despite the peer review process being standard practice for scientic journals, many of the research publications on COVID-19 were not subjected to the peer review system. In fact, numerous publications were pre-prints and papers shared by researchers online which were not peer reviewed, yet they were accepted and published by scientic journals in developing nations. When authors start to lose condence in the peer review process of a journal, they are not likely to submit their research work to such journals and this can lead to a diminished impact and reputation of such journals. Additionally, the selection of the assessors by the Editor-in -Chief is usually from the academic space of the editor and from the colleagues of the editor that usually share the editor's view. Contrary to what some editors in the developing countries believe, medical and academic administrative positions do not necessarily result in expertise in the peer review process. An editor can easily identify a poor assessment of an article, from the vitriolic feed-back of the author to the editor about an assessor when a paper is not recommended for publication. This paper provides evidence of and outlines the possible reasons that the peer review process is substandard in developing countries.

Student Perceptions of the Peer Review Process in Student Writing Projects

1997 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark G. Simkin ◽  
Nari K. Ramarapu
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Student Perceptions ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Total Quality ◽  
Review System ◽  
Student Views ◽  
Term Papers ◽  
High Degree

The process of academic peer review—i.e., students evaluating each other's work—can help instructors address a host of higher institutional objectives, not the least of which is the total quality management of collegiate teaching. But more is known about this process from the viewpoint of instructors than from the perspective of students. The purpose of this study was to formally examine student views of a specific peer-review system in which undergraduates assigned final grades to each other's term papers. A survey instrument revealed a high degree of comfort with the process, as well as some insights into why a few students were uncomfortable with it.

scholarly journals The role and significance of peer-review in Russian and foreign library and information science journals: a comparative analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
V.  N. Gureyev ◽  
N.  A. Mazov
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Review System ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Peer Reviewers

The paper summarizes experience of the authors as peer-reviewers of more than 100 manuscripts in twelve Russian and foreign academic journals on Library and Information Science in the last seven years. Prepared peer-reviews were used for making a list of the most usual critical and special comments for each manuscript that were subsequently structured for the conducted analyzes. Typical issues accompanying the peer-review process are shown. Significant differences between the results of peer-review in Russian and foreign journals are detected: although the initial quality of newly submitted manuscripts is approximately equal, the final published versions in foreign journals addressed all critical and the majority of minor reviewers’ comments, while in Russian journals more than one third of final versions were published with critical gaps. We conclude about low interest in high quality peer reviews among both authors and editors-in-chief in Russian journals. Despite the limitations of the samples, the obtained findings can be useful when evaluating the current peer-review system in Russian academic journals on Library and Information Science.

PsyArXiv

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 38-42
Author(s):  
Margie Ruppel
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Key Features ◽  
Accessibility Issues ◽  
Science Framework

PsyArXiv, an Open Access preprint service, is the only platform in North America dedicated to making psychology and psychological science papers available to scholars, students, and the general public prior to peer review. The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science operates PsyArXiv; two governing boards provide guidance; and member institutions provide financial support. Key features include an abundance of new scholarship in all areas of psychology, an Open Access infrastructure using the Open Science Framework, and links to associated outputs, thus improving access to research and grey literature. Drawbacks include some accessibility issues and a lack of prominent notices on preprints indicating they have not gone through the peer review process.

scholarly journals Does Peer Review Identify the Best Papers? A Simulation Study of Editors, Reviewers, and the Scientific Publication Process

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (04) ◽  
pp. 963-969 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Esarey
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Computational Simulation ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Review System ◽  
Multiple Systems ◽  
Average Reader

ABSTRACTHow does the structure of the peer review process, which can vary among journals, influence the quality of papers published in a journal? This article studies multiple systems of peer review using computational simulation. I find that, under any of the systems I study, a majority of accepted papers are evaluated by an average reader as not meeting the standards of the journal. Moreover, all systems allow random chance to play a strong role in the acceptance decision. Heterogeneous reviewer and reader standards for scientific quality drive both results. A peer review system with an active editor—that is, one who uses desk rejection before review and does not rely strictly on reviewer votes to make decisions—can mitigate some of these effects.

scholarly journals RETRACTION: Pain in systemic sclerosis

Reumatismo ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 120
Author(s):  
M.A. Cimmino
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Sclerosis ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Plagiarism Detection ◽  
Detection Software

To our readers: With deep regrets, we inform that the article Pain in systemic sclerosis (DOI: https:// doi.org/10.4081/reumatismo.2014.764), which has been published in Reumatismo (2014; 66(1): 44-47), contains verbatim text plagiarized from another paper. The manuscript must be considered as retracted.On behalf of the Editorial Board of Reumatismo, I apologize to the Author of the manuscript whose text was plagiarized by Stisi et al. that this was not picked up in the peer review process. I also apologize to the affected journal for the violation of copyright due to plagiarism. Reumatismo is uncompromising in its commitment to scientific integrity. When credible evidence of misconduct is brought to our attention, our commitment to the scientific record and to our readership requires immediate notification. Reumatismo is increasingly employing sophisticated software to detect plagiarism. Other journals use similar tools. Authors should be aware that most journals routinely employ plagiarism detection software, and that any plagiarism is likely to be detected.Marco A. CimminoEditor-in-ChiefReumatismo

scholarly journals HortIM™: An Online Peer Review System for Horticultural Teaching and Extension Instructional Materials

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 138-143
Author(s):  
Michael A. Arnold ◽  
Mary H. Meyer ◽  
Tim Rhodus ◽  
Susan S. Barton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Instructional Materials ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Instructional Videos ◽  
American Society ◽  
Excellence In Science ◽  
Teaching Modules

Based on a survey of the American Society for Horticultural Science (ASHS), membership need was identified for an online peer review system to validate innovation and recognize excellence in science-based teaching and extension scholarship for promotion and tenure purposes. This system would also provide a clearinghouse for instructional materials of merit for use in classrooms, laboratories, and outreach education, which fall outside the parameters of the three academic journals of ASHS. It was determined HortTechnology already provided a valued outlet for peer review of manuscript style teaching and extension scholarship; however, a need was identified for a mechanism to provide peer review of instructional materials which did not conform to a traditional manuscript format. Herein we describe the process that led to the development and launch of HortIM™, a new peer review system for teaching and extension instructional materials. An online peer review process for juried assessment of instructional materials such as articles, bulletins, case studies, fact sheets, instructional videos, teaching modules, and laboratory exercises was developed. A beta test of initial solicited materials in each category was piloted resulting in an initial database of these scholarly materials. This activity culminated in an initial opening of the system for submissions in Fall 2016. This article documents the development of HortIM™, including the submission and review process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document