scholarly journals Quick Menu About Us Scope of this Journal Editorial Board Members Editorial Policy Author guidelines Manuscript submission procedure Submission template Submit Manuscript Review Policy Fees Policy Current issues Archives Abstracting & Indexing Advertisements policy Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, UPM Community Health Society Malaysia Want To Study Public Health? Editorial Board Members Chief Editor Associate Professor Dr. Haji Muhamad Hanafiah Juni (Malaysia) Deputy Chief Editor Dr. Rosliza Abdul Manaf (Malaysia) Editors Professor Monica Popa (Rumania) Professor AKM Fazlur Rahman (Bangladesh) Dr. Najafi Sharj Abad (Iran) Dr. Bolarinwa Oladimeji Akeem (Nigeria) Dr. Destanul Aulia (Indonesia) Associate Professor Dr. Anita Abdul Rahman (Malaysia) Dr. Mohd Rafee Baharuddin (Malaysia) Dr. Lim Poh Ying (Malaysia) Dr. Suhainizam Muhamad Saliluddin (Malaysia) Dr. Suriani Ismail (Malaysia) Web Administrator Ahmad Mustafa Abrar JOURNAL CONTENT Search Search Scope Browse By Issue By Author By Title USER Username Password Remember me SubmitSubmit ANNOUNCEMENTS CALLING FOR PAPERS VOLUME 5 No. 5, September/October 2018 Flag Counter Home > Vol 5, No 6 (2018) > S. NURSES’ PERCEPTIONS, ATTITUDES AND PREFERENCES IN USING ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTATION IN A PUBLIC HOSPITAL, SELANGOR

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Community Health ◽  
Editorial Policy ◽  
Chief Editor ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Manuscript Submission ◽  
Manuscript Review ◽  
Journal Editorial ◽  
Nurses Perceptions

scholarly journals Notes from the editor

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 480-480
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Executive Committee ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Editorial Policy ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
First Line ◽  
New Ideas

The first thing most readers will notice about this issue is the cover, which is colored blue this time and is adorned by a clock to signify “Taking Temporality Seriously,” the first article in the issue. After noting the cover (admiringly, I hope) and browsing through the table of contents, readers are hereby invited to shift their attention briefly to the roster of editorial board members inside the cover. There they will see something new: as previewed in an earlier “Notes from the Editor,” an executive committee of the Review's editorial board is now in operation. The six-member executive committee consists of four representatives of major subfields of the discipline (Darren Davis for American politics, James Morrow for international politics, Kirstie McClure for political theory, and Sven Steinmo for comparative politics) and two “at-large” members (Neta Crawford and Robert Goodin). The members of the executive committee are intended to be the “first among equals” in advising me on matters of editorial policy, serving as an initial sounding board and source of new ideas before issues come to the full editorial board. Pertinent examples of the committee's responsibilities include planning an appropriate commemoration of the Review's centenary and revisiting our procedures for handling “Forum” submissions and responses. Executive committee members also constitute a first line of defense in advising me when issues arise concerning particular manuscripts, though such responsibilities tend to be infrequent and, given the diversity of the manuscripts we consider, are fairly widely dispersed among members of the editorial board rather than confined solely to executive committee members. All editorial board members also share responsibility for “recruiting” promising manuscripts within their areas of expertise, but executive committee members are asked to be especially active in this regard. Finally, it is the executive committee that will, early in 2003, review the performance of our editorial office in general and my performance as editor in particular. With the latter point in mind, I want to emphasize (1) that I selected the executive committee with an eye toward diversity of various sorts (substantive, theoretical, methodological, demographic, and so on), and (2) that the executive committee consists of individuals with whom I have not been associated professionally or personally, apart from my familiarity with their work, and with whom I have no more than a nodding acquaintance, if that.

scholarly journals Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice Editorial 9.2

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 2-4
Author(s):  
Geraldine E. Lefoe ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
University Teaching ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Host Institution ◽  
New Members ◽  
Vice Chancellor ◽  
To Come ◽  
The University

With this second issue of Volume 9 of the Journal of Teaching and Learning Practice we bring a warm welcome to new members of the Editorial board. The board will be strengthened by their contributions. The Senior Editors are Associate Professor Geraldine Lefoe, University of Wollongong, Australia and Dr Meg O'Reilly, Southern Cross University, Australia. Our editorial board includes members of the host institution (University of Wollongong), Dr Lynne Keevers, Ms Lucia Tome, Associate Professor Greg Hampton, Dr. Michael Jones, Associate Professor Anne Porter, and Dr. Dominique Parrish. Our external board members include Ms Jude Carroll, Associate Professor Andrew Furco, Professor Terence Lovat, and Ms Carolyn Webb. We have particularly appreciated the support of the University of Wollongong’s Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) Professor Rob Castle who has recently retired. His patronage and support of our journal has seen it move from a small internal journal to a much larger international journal. He has been a great champion for teaching and learning in the local and national arena and his contributions to the institution and to the sector have been greatly valued. We wish him well in his retirement and know that he will continue his contributions to the sector in the years to come.

scholarly journals Conflict of Interest - Serious Issue on Publication Ethics for Indian Medical Journals

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (190) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kusal K. Das ◽  
Tejaswini Vallabha ◽  
Jaydeb Ray ◽  
P.S.N. Murthy
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Editorial Policy ◽  
Editorial Staff ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Indian Medical ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Background: There are several vested interest lies on research publication hence the editorial policy is the sole important factor to control and regulate ethical publications in medical sciences especially on ‘conflict of interest’ issue.Aim: the study was aimed to assess on awareness of ‘conflict of interest’ issue in medical research and publication among the editorial staff, peer reviewers and authors of Indian medical journals.Methods: 61 authors who have published research articles recently in Indian medical journals (2008-2012), 56 peer reviewers who reviewed the manuscripts during same period and 35 editorial board members of various Indian medical journals were assessed by questionnaire and telephone interview regarding their understanding and knowledge on ‘conflict of interest’ issue for ethical publication.Results: Only 12% of the authors knew about the ‘conflict of interest’ issue and 19% of the medical authors have just heard about it! Out of 12% of authors who knew ‘conflict of interest’ issue only 5% provided that statement to the journals. Among the peer reviewers only 30% knew about ‘conflict of interest’ of which 91.5% stated that they do not bother about this issue while reviewing the manuscripts! But interestingly 75% of the peer reviewers confessed that they had a bias on the topics written by their friends or students! Among the editorial board members of Indian medical journals only 25% have any idea on ‘conflict of interest issue’.Conclusions: Results clearly shows poor understanding of ‘conflict of interest’ like important ethical issue among Indian medical scientists or journals.Keywords: authors; conflict of Interest; editorial members; peer reviewers; Indian Medical Journals.

scholarly journals Aleksandr Tvardovsky’s Journal “New World” in Memoirs

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 599-607
Author(s):  
Tatiana O. Ostroumova
Keyword(s):  
New World ◽  
Editorial Policy ◽  
World Journal ◽  
Chief Editor ◽  
Editorial Work ◽  
History Of ◽  
The 1950S ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
The Impact

The article is devoted to the history of the journal “New World” of the second half of the 1950s — the 1960s, and the work of its chief editor A.T. Tvardovsky. It focuses on the second period of Tvardovsky’s editorship, the first part of which fell on the era of “thaw” (1958—1964), the second one — on the era of early “stagnation” (1965—1970). The article assesses the professional qualities of A.T. Tvardovsky as an editor. There are considered his literary preferences, attitude to the editorial work, and the factors that influenced the radical changes in his worldview. The author examines the editorial policy of the journal in the context of political changes in public life. Within the topic, the article shows the impact of various party and state bodies, including censorship, on culture and, in particular, on literature. There is traced the outline of events around “New World” journal, the publication history of the novel “One Day of Ivan Denisovich”, and the relations between A.T. Tvardovsky and A.I. Solzhenitsyn. There is analyzed the controversy surrounding A.I. Solzhenitsyn’s book “The Oak and the Calf”. The article notes the different level of publications’ information content of the “stagnation” and perestroika eras.The purpose of the study is to determine the place of Tvardovsky’s “New World” in the literary and political struggle of the second half of the 1950s — the 1960s, and the journal’s impact on the worldview formation of the generation of intellectuals, who played a significant role in the restructuring of the 1980s. The article is relevant because the journal “New World” of the second half of the 1950s — the 1960s occupies one of the central places in the history of Russian Soviet literature and journalism. A.T. Tvardovsky’s “New World” was the most consistent conductor of the policy of de-Stalinization in the “thaw” era, and continued the chosen course, despite Brezhnev’s policy of re-Stalinization, thus becoming a legal journal opposing the current government. The novelty of the article lies in the fact that this topic is studied using memoir sources: recollections and diaries of the events’ participants — famous writers, literary critics, members of the Editorial Board and employees of the journal “New World” — as well as A.T. Tvardovsky’s “Workbooks” and “New World Diary”. These sources allow to supplement the known facts and to reconstruct events related to the legendary journal’s history. Conclusions and observations made by the author can be used to further study the history and work of “New World” journal.

Who Are the Gatekeepers? An Examination of Diversity in INFORMS Journal Editorial Boards

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laker J. Newhouse ◽  
Margaret L. Brandeau
Keyword(s):  
Academic Success ◽  
Underrepresented Minorities ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Underrepresented Minority ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
Journal Editorial ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
High Level

Publishing in respected scholarly journals is critical to academic success. However, if journal editorial boards fail to reflect the diversity of thought in a field, worthy work may be overlooked. This study assesses the level of diversity in the editorial boards of the 16 INFORMS journals. We examine gender, whether an individual is an underrepresented minority, and institutional affiliation, and perform a network analysis to identify coauthor relationships between editorial board members. We find that the editorial boards have low levels of diversity: women comprise just under 20% of the editorial board members; fewer than 1% of editorial board members are underrepresented minorities; and 10 institutions (less than 5% of the total) account for more than 25% of the editors. We find a high level of connectivity between editorial board members (as measured by coauthor relationship) for some of the INFORMS journals, suggesting the influence of an “in crowd” of like-minded individuals. INFORMS can and should work to end this state of affairs: we provide a set of actionable recommendations for broadening diversity and reducing connectivity on the INFORMS journal editorial boards. In this way, INFORMS journals can support a diversity of backgrounds and views, enabling the publication of a broader range of ideas and invigorating academic discourse in our profession.

scholarly journals CONTRIBUTION OF EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS TO JOURNAL’S SCHOLARLY OUTPUT

2021 ◽  
pp. 113-119
Author(s):  
V. N. Gureyev ◽  
N. A. Mazov ◽  
I. Yu. Ilicheva
Keyword(s):  
Editorial Policy ◽  
Publication Activity ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Scholarly Output ◽  
A Share

Editorial board members (EBMs) of academic journals have been frequently studied for better understanding the principles of their functioning, impact on editorial policy, publication ethics, and entire scientific progress. One of the promising trends is to quantitatively evaluate the contribution of EBMs to the scholarly output of parent journals. This paper represents the results of the study on publication activity of editorial board members of the Russian Library and Information Science journals. To detect a share of papers by EBMs in the journal’s scholarly output, we studied a share of EBMs papers in parent journals and other sources. Generally, we detected the active participation of EBMs in increasing scholarly output of parent journals. We also studied the publication activity of foreign members of EBMs in Russian journals that turned out to bedramatically low. Formal involvement of foreign researchers to enhance the level of journal’s internationalization may explain this situation. It is shown, that the fact of publication fails to significantly impact on journal’s ranking positions. The scientific quality of EBMs papers has proved to be of higher value: in case of high quality of EBMs papers, the number of readers and citations start to increase. On the other hand, uncited papers by EBMs have the lowest or even negative effect on the journal’s rank. The findings can be of interest to editors-in-chief and founders of academic journals.

scholarly journals 20 YEARS OF ANNALS OF KEMU (1995 � 2015)

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 210
Author(s):  
Prof Dr. Syed Muhammad Awais
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Editorial Policy ◽  
Manuscript Submission ◽  
Total Income ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Publication Cost ◽  
Editorial Review ◽  
The Cost

The Annals of KEMU was first published in 1995, and Prof. Abdul Majeed Ch. was the first editor. I was appointed as editor on 15th May 2007, the responsibility which I will be completing on my retirement on 9th December, 2015. A brief report of Annals of KEMU from 15-05-2007 to 09-12-2015 is stated below for kind information of the authors, reviewers and readers of the Annals. The title of Annals of KEMC was changed to Annals of KEMU, new editorial board was constituted and editorial policy was made and approved on 14th June 2007. According to editorial policy 2007, the editorial process was divided into six (6) steps; 1-Manuscript Submission, 2-Plagiarism Check with Turnitun, 3-review of manuscript by two reviewers, 4-acceptance/rewriting/rejection, 5-publication and 6-circulation. As a result of high quality, the Annals was recognized by PMDC in 2009. The HEC recognized Annals first in category Z and later on raised the category to Y and in July 2015 to highest category X. Annals of KEMU has been indexed with; 1-Pak MediNet (1996), 2-EMRO Indexus of WHO (1997), 3-Directory of Open Access Journals-DOAJ (2007), 4-ICJME Database(2010), 5-PKP Harvester Database, 6-Open J Gate Database (2010), 7-Google Scholar. From June 2007 to November 2015, thirty five (35) issues of Annals of KEMU were published. Five hundred and sixty (560) manuscript were received, four hundred and thirty eight (38) manuscripts were accepted and published, forty three (43) were rejected, and four (04) manuscripts were withdrawn by authors. Until December 2015, seventy five (75) manuscripts are in editorial review process. Total income of the Annals from June 2007 to December 2015 was Rs. 12,52,280/- (Grant from HEC Rs. 6,12,280, collection from authors at rate of Rs. 1,000 for processing each manuscript Rs. 5,60,000 and from advertisements Rs. 80,000. During this period the expenditures of Annals have been Rs. 12,80,215 (publication cost Rs. 11,36,215 and correspondence and circulation Rs 1,44,000). In this way the cost to KEMU treasury has been Rs. 27,935/-. The credit for the achievements of; maintaining good quality (plagiarism below 19% and approval by two reviewers of same specialty), achieving PMDC recognition and highest HEC rank, having Annals indexed with 7 databases and just cost of Rs. 27, 935 to KEMU treasury for publishing of 35 Issues goes to our able editorial board, authors, reviewers and the staff. I take this opportunity to thank all of them, espe-cially the editorial secretaries, Mr. Asim Saeed and Mr. Muhammad Afzal (Assistant Annals of KEMU), who have worked very hard.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document