Análisis de contenido y nivel de evidencia de los artículos sobre Covid-19 más citados en la Web of Science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
José-Antonio Salvador-Oliván ◽  
Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca ◽  
Rosario Arquero-Avilés
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Expert Opinions ◽  
Bibliographic Data

The scientific literature on Covid-10 has seen unprecedented growth, becoming published so rapidly that it has caused a loss of quality and the peer review process to be questioned. This research analyzes the characteristics of the publications with a wider impact on Covid-19, mainly those related to the content, the quality and level of evidence of the studies. Web of Science Core Collection was searched for articles containing the terms Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-19 and the 100 most cited articles published in 2020 were selected. The data extracted included bibliographic data, dates of submission, acceptance and publication in the journals, main topics covered, type of study and level of evidence according to the SIGN scale, and the presence of corrections. Half of the articles were published in 3 journals, most of them in the first months of 2020. The most frequent types of studies corresponded to case series, narrative reviews and expert opinions, with only 1 randomized controlled clinical trial. The articles focused mainly on the clinical characteristics and complications of the patients, diagnostic and treatment methods, as well as the epidemiology and characteristics of the virus. The design of these studies reflects a low level of evidence, and data and scientific quality may be affected by how quickly they are published, and the peer review process is performed. Resumen El crecimiento sin precedentes de la bibliografía científica sobre Covid-19 y la rapidez en su publicación ha llevado a cuestionar la calidad y el proceso de revisión por pares. Este estudio tiene como objetivo analizar las características de las publicaciones con mayor impacto sobre Covid-19, principalmente las relacionadas con el contenido, la calidad y nivel de evidencia de los estudios. Para ello, se buscó en la colección principal de Web of Science los artículos que contenían los términos Covid-19 y SARS-CoV-19 en el campo del título y se seleccionaron los 100 artículos más citados publicados en el año 2020. Además de los datos bibliográficos, se recogieron datos de las fechas de envío, aceptación y publicación en las revistas, principales temas tratados, tipo de estudio y nivel de evidencia según la escala SIGN, así como de la presencia de correcciones. Más de la mitad de los artículos están publicados en 3 revistas, y la mayoría de ellos en los primeros meses de 2020. Los tipos de estudios más frecuentes son series de casos, revisiones narrativas y opiniones de expertos, con solo 1 ensayo clínico controlado aleatorizado. El contenido de los artículos trata principalmente de las características clínicas y complicaciones de los enfermos, métodos diagnósticos y de tratamiento, así como de la epidemiología y características del virus. Los artículos presentan un nivel de evidencia bajo, a pesar de estar publicados en revistas de medicina con muy alto factor de impacto. El tiempo transcurrido entre la fecha de envío y de publicación es muy corto y cuestiona la realización y/o rigor del proceso de revisión por pares.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 875 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
State University ◽  
Advance Research ◽  
Primary Hypothesis ◽  
Scientific Station ◽  
E Mail

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind • Conference submission management system: The submission processing had no a software system. Call-for-paper was placed on the Conference web page, the papers were submitted via e-mail. The reviews were asked and received via e-mails. • Number of submissions received: 118 • Number of submissions sent for review: 104 • Number of submissions accepted: 93 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 79% • Average number of reviews per paper: 1.9 • Total number of reviewers involved: 1,433 • Any additional info on review process: The consideration of the submitted manuscript included independent peer review process. At least two reviewers gave their view and remarks for each paper. All reviewers were asked to provide a detailed review with comments for authors and editors and evaluate paper taking into account the questions list (Is this work novel? Is this work scientifically correct (the experimental procedure and sequence)? Does the subject significantly advance research in the fields of research? Does it have high scientific quality? Does this work have significant proof to verify the primary hypothesis? Is this work incremental? Is the paper clearly written, concise and understandable? Should the English be improved? Is the paper scientifically sound and not misleading?). All reviewers also were asked to provide their recommendations about paper acceptance (to publish the paper “as is”; to publish the paper after minor revision; to publish the paper after major revision; to reject the paper). • Contact person for queries: Dr. Anna Godymchuk, Tobolsk Complex Scientific Station, [email protected] Prof. Svetlana Morkovina, Vice-rector of Voronezh State University of Forestry and Technologies named after G.F. Morozov, Russia [email protected]

scholarly journals The limited value of journal peer review in public health: a case series of tobacco harm reduction articles.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl V. Phillips ◽  
Igor Burstyn ◽  
Brian L. Carter
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Harm Reduction ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Tobacco Harm Reduction ◽  
Almost All

Background: A widespread belief holds that the journal peer-review process ensures that published claims are correct. In public health this results in consumer, clinical, and policy decisions being based on blind faith in the accuracy of claims that appear in journals. Methods: We wrote reviews, as if we were writing journal peer reviews, of 12 consecutive articles related to tobacco harm reduction topics published in a mainstream public health journal, BMC Public Health, from 2012 to 2015. We then compared these to the reviews written by the journal’s reviewers. Additionally, we reviewed the changes made to the papers as a result of the journal reviews. Results: Almost all the papers in the dataset suffered from major flaws, most of which could have been corrected. None of these were corrected by the journal review process. In the single case where a journal reviewer identified many of the major flaws, the comments were basically ignored by the authors. Unreported conflict of interest was common among both authors and reviewers. Conclusions: The journal publishing process contributed very little value, compared to just circulating working papers, other than formatting and indexing. In public health, the phrase “according to a peer-reviewed journal article” seems to mean little more than “I read this somewhere.”

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 Assessment of Variables that Influence Agreement Amongst Reviewers for Foot & Ankle International

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473011418S0030
Author(s):  
John Kwon ◽  
Tyler Gonzalez ◽  
Chris Miller ◽  
Shera Palmer Cook ◽  
David Thordarson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Initial Decision ◽  
Area Of Interest

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: The peer-review process is a rigorous process under which manuscripts are assessed for their overall scientific quality and is generally accepted as the highest standard of scientific scrutiny with regard to medical publishing. A common criticism regards the often disparate nature of reviewer recommendations when a decision is rendered which belies the supposed uniformity of the review process. The purpose of this investigation was to: (1) examine the historic level of agreement amongst reviewers for Foot & Ankle International (FAI) and (2) to assess variables which may influence agreement in order to improve the peer-review process. Methods: Approval to conduct this study was obtained from the Editorial Board of FAI. All manuscripts submitted to FAI during 2015 which underwent peer-review were included in the analysis. For each reviewed manuscript, demographic data was collected regarding specific reviewer and manuscript characteristics in a de-identified manner. Univariate analysis was performed. Results: 442 manuscripts underwent peer-review by 198 reviewers during the study period. During this time period, other papers were reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and rejected prior to being sent out for review. Of the 884 reviews performed, 339 (38%) recommended rejection, 353 (40%) recommended revision and resubmission and191(22%) recommended accept. Only 199 manuscripts (45%) had a decision rendered in which both reviewers agreed on the initial recommendation.The most common initial decision was rejection (52.7%) followed by revise and resubmit (42.8%). Only 20 manuscripts (4.5%) received an outright acceptance upon initial review. Comparing the agreeing versus disagreeing reviewers, there was no difference in demographic data such as reviewer age or experience. When examining key words (designated by reviewers as a particular area of interest within foot and ankle), there was no association between shared interests and level of reviewer agreement. Overall, for all reviewers, mean acceptance rate was19% (+/- 16%), mean reject rate 37% (+/- 20%) and mean revise 44% (+/- 19%). Conclusion: Regarding initial decision for publication in FAI, there was only 45% agreement amongst reviewers for manuscripts which underwent peer-review in 2015. However, no reviewer-specific variables examined in this investigation were found to correlate with agreement. Despite reviewers having similar interests in various aspects of foot and ankle surgery, this did not lead to an increased likelihood of agreement. Agreement and more uniform assessment of manuscripts by reviewers may be increased by specific education.

scholarly journals Caution, preprint! Brief explanations allow non-scientists to differentiate between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Wingen ◽  
Jana Berkessel ◽  
Simone Dohle
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Control Process ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Quality Control Process ◽  
The Us ◽  
Research Findings

A growing number of research findings are initially published as preprints, a development fueled by the COVID-19 crisis. Preprints are not peer-reviewed and thus did not undergo the established scientific quality control process. Many researchers hence worry that these preprints reach non-scientists, such as practitioners, journalists, and policymakers, who might be unable to differentiate them from the peer-reviewed literature. Across 5 studies in Germany and the US, we investigated whether this concern is warranted and whether this problem can be solved by providing non-scientists with a brief explanation of preprints and the peer-review process. Studies 1 and 2 showed that without an explanation, non-scientists perceive research findings published as preprints as equally credible as findings published as peer-reviewed articles. However, an explanation of the peer-review process reduces the credibility of preprints (studies 3 and 4). In study 5, we developed and tested a shortened version of this explanation which we recommend adding to preprints. This explanation again allowed non-scientists to differentiate between preprints and the peer-reviewed literature. This effect was mediated by the perception of preprints’ quality control and their perceived adherence to publication standards. In sum, our research demonstrates that even a short explanation of the concept of preprints and their lack of peer-review allows non-scientists who evaluate scientific findings to adjust their credibility perception accordingly. This would allow harvesting the benefits of preprints, such as faster and more accessible science communication while reducing concerns about public overconfidence in the presented findings.

Editorial Policies Overview

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Chen
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Editorial Policies ◽  
Scientific Experts ◽  
Open Access Publisher ◽  
Single Blind

As a global open access publisher, Tech Science Press is dedicated to disseminating cutting-edge scholarly research among scientific community by advocating an immediate, world-wide and barrier-free access to the research we publish. To ensure all publication meeting our ethical and scientific quality standards, each submission goes through a rigorous review process, including pre-peer-review by relevant editorial board, a single-blind peer-review process by scientific experts, revision following reviewers’ comments as well as final approval by the editorial board.

scholarly journals Open Peer Reviews and Blind Peer Reviews: Merits and Demerits

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 426-427
Author(s):  
Saira Afzal
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Control Mechanism ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Quality Assurance Mechanism ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

The peer review process is essentially the quality control mechanism. Scientific discoveries and advancements have far reaching implications especially in health and medical publications. The quality assurance mechanism in medical journals has to be stringent and flawless. The peer review systems are continuously being criticized, debated and updated. It may be open peer review or blind peer review, both have advantages and disadvantages. Open peer review is performed for scientific quality after publication. It is also known as transparent peer review and public peer review.

scholarly journals ICECAE 2021 PEER-REVIEW DECLARATION

2021 ◽  
Vol 939 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Technical Committee ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Preliminary Review ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Professional Assessment ◽  
Professional Review

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer-reviewed through processes administered by the Editor-in-Chief. A three-stage peer-review process was applied that includes initial screening, peer-review, and post-review phases. Reviews were conducted by international expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. Type of peer review: Triple-blind. There was a three-round reviewing process by the Scientific and Technical Committee. First-round is a preliminary review, plagiarism/similarity check (using Turnitin), quality, and topic. The papers, which did not pass the plagiarism/similarity check-up, were rejected immediately and the authors of the rejected papers received the rejection notice along with the similarity report. The second round of reviewing is a professional review, 2-3 experts of related research field gave the professional assessment and comment on scientific quality, relevance with the topics of the conference, originality, subject matter and style of presentation appropriate for IOP: EES, language, and impact of the paper. Consequently, the referees’ decided whether the paper accepted, rejected, conditionally accepted with minor revisions, conditionally accepted with major revisions, or rejected. The authors had the opportunity to revise their papers based on the reviewers’ recommendations. Third round reviewing is the final checking and format analysis of the revised papers. Passed submissions got the acceptance notification from the ICECAE 2021 Editor-in-Chief. ▪ Conference submission management system: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=icecae2021 ▪ Number of submissions received: 249 ▪ Number of submissions sent for review: 215 ▪ Number of submissions accepted: 101 ▪ Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 41% ▪ Average number of reviews per paper: 2 ▪ Total number of reviewers involved: 14 ▪ Any additional info on review process: N/A ▪ Contact person for queries: Obid Tursunov, [email protected]

scholarly journals Editors’ note

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 249 ◽  
Author(s):  
WD Heller ◽  
G Scherer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Bibliographic Data ◽  
The Future ◽  
Technical Achievement

AbstractSince the beginning of 2003, BeiträgezurTabakforschung International/Contributions to Tobacco Research is available on the Internet at www.beitraege-bti.de.The website contains PDF files of all articles published in the Journal since 1961. In addition, an infobase has been implemented which allows the search for authors, bibliographic data and words in titles and abstracts. The website is updated with the complete articles at about the same time as each new issue of Beiträge goes into print. This means that the new issues may be available on the Internet somewhat earlier than the printed issue.We think the website of Beiträge is an improvement of the service for all present readers and might also help to enlarge the readership of the Journal in the future. We all know that nothing is perfect and everything (particularly new things) can be improved. The Editorial Office of Beiträge would be grateful for any suggestions regarding improvement of the website.We as Editors would like to take this opportunity to assure our readers that, despite this “great technical achievement”, the journal will keep to some “old-fashioned” traditions. For example, the peer-review process is maintained as it is and also the printed issue of Beiträge will be send to you in the usual way.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document