scholarly journals The long and winding road to publication

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 213-215
Author(s):  
Edwin Roland Van Teijlingen ◽  
Padam Prasad Simkhada ◽  
Bibha Simkhada ◽  
Jillian Catherine Ireland
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Scientific Papers

It is clear that academic dissemination has a system of checks and balances which authors may experience as barriers.  We all want to be sure that scientific information disseminated in academic journals is based on solid data, ethically collected and correctly interpreted.  The process of peer reviewing helps to prevent bad science and/or poor scientific papers being published.  Many published scientific papers differ from the original submitted manuscript since papers go through a process of peer-review, editing and rewriting.  However, there are other potential obstacles in the field of academic publishing.  This paper is a case-study of one methods paper which stumbled upon a number of barriers related to the viability and continued existence of a number of academic journals in Nepal.  Finally, we offer some advice to help health journals to survive when their editors leave.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/nje.v2i4.7093Nepal Journal of Epidemiology Vol.2(4) 2012 pp.213-215

scholarly journals The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study

2020 ◽  
Vol 125 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maciej J. Mrowinski ◽  
Agata Fronczak ◽  
Piotr Fronczak ◽  
Olgica Nedic ◽  
Aleksandar Dekanski
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Insight Into

Abstract In this paper, we provide insight into the editorial process as seen from the perspective of journal editors. We study a dataset obtained from the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, which contains information about submitted and rejected manuscripts, in order to find differences between local (Serbian) and external (non-Serbian) submissions. We show that external submissions (mainly from India, Iran and China) constitute the majority of all submissions, while local submissions are in the minority. Most of submissions are rejected for technical reasons (e.g. wrong manuscript formatting or problems with images) and many users resubmit the same paper without making necessary corrections. Manuscripts with just one author are less likely to pass the technical check, which can be attributed to missing metadata. Articles from local authors are better prepared and require fewer resubmissions on average before they are accepted for peer review. The peer review process for local submissions takes less time than for external papers and local submissions are more likely to be accepted for publication. Also, while there are more men than women among external users, this trend is reversed for local users. In the combined group of local and external users, articles submitted by women are more likely to be published than articles submitted by men.

Peer Reviewers as Co-Authors

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matheus Pereira Lobo
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Reward System ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Open peer review is a process in which names of peer reviewers of papers submitted to academic journals are disclosed to the authors of the papers in question. Peer reviewing is a tough task, it requires large amounts of knowledge and effort. Reviewers usually work in the same discipline as the authors of the paper under consideration. It seems natural to ponder that those reviewers could give major contributions if they could sign the paper as one of the co-authors. Here we propose that open peer reviewers should join the list of co-authors as a reward system based on transparency, expertise and justice.

scholarly journals The impact of peer review on the contribution potential of scientific papers

PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e11999
Author(s):  
Akira Matsui ◽  
Emily Chen ◽  
Yunwen Wang ◽  
Emilio Ferrara
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Latent Dirichlet Allocation ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Linear Regression Models ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
Indispensable Tool ◽  
The Impact

The peer-reviewing process has long been regarded as an indispensable tool in ensuring the quality of a scientific publication. While previous studies have tried to understand the process as a whole, not much effort has been devoted to investigating the determinants and impacts of the content of the peer review itself. This study leverages open data from nearly 5,000 PeerJ publications that were eventually accepted. Using sentiment analysis, Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic modeling, mixed linear regression models, and logit regression models, we examine how the peer-reviewing process influences the acceptance timeline and contribution potential of manuscripts, and what modifications were typically made to manuscripts prior to publication. In an open review paradigm, our findings indicate that peer reviewers’ choice to reveal their names in lieu of remaining anonymous may be associated with more positive sentiment in their review, implying possible social pressure from name association. We also conduct a taxonomy of the manuscript modifications during a revision, studying the words added in response to peer reviewer feedback. This study provides insights into the content of peer reviews and the subsequent modifications authors make to their manuscripts.

scholarly journals THE USE OF PEER REVIEWING IN OVERCOMING PHONOLOGICAL ERRORS IN ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Ira Adinegara ◽  
A. M. Surachmat ◽  
Didih Faridah
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
English Education ◽  
Classroom Observation ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Process Learning ◽  
English Pronunciation ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Phonological Errors ◽  
Support Students

ABSTRACT This study reports on the use of peer reviewing in overcoming phonological errors in English pronunciation conducted to the freshmen of English Education Program in Galuh University. Peer review is one of appropriate techniques to support students in learning speaking particularly English pronunciation. In this regard, the writers addressed some questions: 1) How does the lecturer use peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation?, 2) What are the students’ perceptions toward the use of peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation?, and 3) What are the benefits of peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation?. Related to the research questions, the writers adopted qualitative approach particularly a case study as the research design. The writers conducted classroom observation, interview to an English lecturer and six students and administered a questionnaire to the students as well. In this case, the respondents were selected purposively. The results showed that the use of peer review is useful to support and motivate the students to learn well. By using peer review, students can be active in their process learning and also they can improve their critical thinking in speaking particularly in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation.Keywords: peer review, pronunciation

scholarly journals Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tine Köhler ◽  
M. Gloria González-Morales ◽  
George C. Banks ◽  
Ernest H. O’Boyle ◽  
Joseph A. Allen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Competency Framework ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Formal Training ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
University Departments ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Quality Of Research

AbstractPeer review is a critical component toward facilitating a robust science in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Peer review exists beyond academic publishing in organizations, university departments, grant agencies, classrooms, and many more work contexts. Reviewers are responsible for judging the quality of research conducted and submitted for evaluation. Furthermore, they are responsible for treating authors and their work with respect, in a supportive and developmental manner. Given its central role in our profession, it is curious that we do not have formalized review guidelines or standards and that most of us never receive formal training in peer reviewing. To support this endeavor, we are proposing a competency framework for peer review. The purpose of the competency framework is to provide a definition of excellent peer reviewing and guidelines to reviewers for which types of behaviors will lead to good peer reviews. By defining these competencies, we create clarity around expectations for peer review, standards for good peer reviews, and opportunities for training the behaviors required to deliver good peer reviews. We further discuss how the competency framework can be used to improve peer reviewing and suggest additional steps forward that involve suggestions for how stakeholders can get involved in fostering high-quality peer reviewing.

scholarly journals Evaluating Academic Journals without Impact Factors for Collection Management Decisions

2002 ◽  
Vol 63 (6) ◽  
pp. 562-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juris Dilevko ◽  
Esther Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Information ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Collection Management ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Management Decisions ◽  
Journal Citation Reports

Evaluation of academic journals for collection management decisions is made all the more difficult when some journals do not have impact factors as assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information and its Journal Citation Reports. Focusing on science, technology, and medicine journals, this study presents a method of evaluating such nonranked journals. The method is based on finding a comparator journal to the nonranked journal, distinguishing between original research articles and other article types, tracing citations to these two target journals in citing journals, comparing the quality of the citing journals that cite both target journals, and describing the contextual typology of the citations to the target journals. A case study of two medical science journals, the nonranked Annals of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the comparator ranked Canadian Family Physician, illustrates the method. This method can help in determining the value of a nonranked journal in relation to a ranked journal.

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 Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Wager ◽  
◽  
Sabine Kleinert
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
List Type ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Published Research

Abstract Background Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic. Methods These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication. Results The main recommendations are that research institutions should: develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers. Conclusions Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document