Moving to the Double-Blind Review System

All conference organizers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) The SNPF 2021 article review process was carried out using a single-blind review system. The number of papers submitted was 84 articles. The number of SNPF 2021 reviewers is 14 people. One reviewer reviewed one article. The review process was done via email and or OCS. The article review results were returned to the authors for revision within a certain period of time. The author sent the revised results, and the plagiarism checked results of the article. The editor then rechecked the revision result. If suitable, it would be forwarded to the editor, either for plagiarism, language, or template. • Conference submission management system: OCS (http://snpfmotogpe.ulm.ac.id/ocs/index.php/snpf/2021) • The number of submissions received: There were 84 articles submitted to SNPF 2021 • The number of submissions sent for review: There were 84 articles reviewed by reviewers of SNPF 2021. • The number of submissions accepted: There were 40 articles accepted for recommendation/publication to JPCS IOP Publishing. • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 47,61% • The average number of reviews per paper: One article was reviewed four times: content review 2x, language review 1x, and template review 1x. • The total number of reviewers involved: There were 14 reviewers (content review), 10 editors (content and template review), and 4 people (language review) • Any additional info on the review process: The author sent the revised article along with the similarity check (maximum 20%). A similarity check was also carried out using Turnitin (maximum 20%) when an article was declared fit for publication. So, the similarity check was done two times. • Contact person for queries: +628975586104 (Misbah) Universitas Lambung Mangkurat [email protected]

Download Full-text

Peer review declaration

Journal of Physics Conference Series ◽

10.1088/1742-6596/2106/1/011002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2106 (1) ◽

pp. 011002

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Management System ◽

Review Process ◽

Acceptance Rate ◽

Review System ◽

Double Blind ◽

Contact Person ◽

Blind Review ◽

Scientific Standards ◽

Single Blind

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series 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 / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) The ICMSS 2021 article review process was carried out using a single-blind review system. One reviewer reviewed 1 article. The number of papers submitted was 52 articles. The number of ICMSS 2021 reviewers is 8 people. 1 article reviewed by 1 reviewer. The review process is done via email and or OCS. The results of the review of the article are returned to the author for revision within a certain period of time. The author sends the revised results and the plagiarism check results of the article. The editor then rechecks the revision result. If it is suitable, it will be forwarded to the editor, whether it is checked for plagiarism, language, or template. • Conference submission management system: OCS (https://conference.ulm.ac.id/index.php/icmss/icmss/) • Number of submissions received: There are 50 articles submitted to ICMSS 2021 • Number of submissions sent for review: There are 50 articles reviewed by reviewers ICMSS 2021. • Number of submissions accepted: 31 articles were accepted for recommendation/publication to JPCS IOP Publishing. • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 62% • Average number of reviews per paper: One article was reviewed 4 times, reviewed content twice, reviews related to language 1x, and review template 1x. • Total number of reviewers involved: There are 8 reviewers (review content), There are 5 editors (review content and templates), and 6 people (review language) • Any additional info on review process: The author sends the revised article along with the similarity check (maximum 20%). When an article is declared fit for publication, a similarity check is also carried out using Turnitin (maximum 20%). So, the similarity check is done 2 times. • Contact person for queries: +628975586104 (Misbah) [email protected] Universitas Lambung Mangkurat

Download Full-text

How Blind is Double Blind Review?

Journal of Higher Education and Science ◽

10.5961/jhes.2021.452 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. 328-338

Author(s):

cem eyerci

Keyword(s):

Faculty Member ◽

Academic Research ◽

Considerable Extent ◽

Peer Review System ◽

Review System ◽

Institutional Affiliation ◽

Double Blind ◽

Blind Review ◽

Political Sciences ◽

Grant Applications

The peer-review system as a critical tool in academic processes is regarded to be essential. It is not used only to evaluate the manuscripts submitted to the journals but also in tenure decisions, academic promotions, and grant applications. However, during the last few decades, the system has also become a subject of academic research and criticized from various aspects. Many scholars studied the process and presented biases emerging due to the characteristics of the authors and reviewers. In this paper, the journals published by the faculties of economics and administrative sciences and the faculties of political sciences and indexed by TR Dizin are studied. It is observed that the language of the article, number, title, gender, and institutional affiliation of the authors do not influence the acceptance period. However, there is a difference between the average acceptance periods of the journals, which are quite similar. Moreover, being a faculty member of the publisher provides a significantly shorter acceptance period on average. The reason for such differentiation may be either the existence of a considerable extent of bias at the editorial stages of the process or the communication of the editors with the reviewers in a way that influences the process.

Download Full-text

Moving to a double-blind review system

Preventive Veterinary Medicine ◽

10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105561 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 105561

Author(s):

Geoffrey T. Fosgate ◽

Marcus G. Doherr ◽

Polychronis Kostoulas

Keyword(s):

Review System ◽

Double Blind ◽

Blind Review

Download Full-text

Torn between the Old and New World of Work: Insights into the Modernised Semi-Profession of the Fashion IndustryDate submitted: December 31, 2019Date accepted after double-blind review: February 1, 2021

management revue ◽

10.5771/0935-9915-2021-3-244 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 32 (3) ◽

pp. 244-265

Author(s):

Alexandra Manske

Keyword(s):

Role Model ◽

New World ◽

Creative Industries ◽

Gender Inequalities ◽

Fashion Industry ◽

Double Blind ◽

Blind Review ◽

Training Structures ◽

Cultural And Creative Industries ◽

Low Pay

This paper explores how persistent gender inequalities of the old world of work are amplified by the new world of work. Focusing on the fashion industry of Berlin, the article offers insight into a female-dominated field of labour as a particular field of labour of the cultural and creative industries (CCI). The CCI is regarded as a role model for new work. However, they entail deep gender inequalities in terms of segregation, low status and low pay. The paper addresses the question of how these gendered inequalities in the fashion industry are intertwined with its professional mechanisms and training structures. Based on a qualitative study, I argue that the fashion industry is a modernised semi-profession, which has been undergoing a market-driven professionalisation. However, this new pathway into the fashion industry fails to fully professionalise that industry. On contrary, it erects new occupational barriers into the field of labour that help establish high qualified and low qualified fashion work that also aids in polarising the still mostly female workforce in terms of status and rewards. Overall, it should become clear that the fashion industry is torn between the old and new world of work which helps to maintain or even reinforce traditional gender inequalities.

Download Full-text

Clinical Research Informatics Contributions from 2015

Yearbook of Medical Informatics ◽

10.15265/iy-2016-044 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 25 (01) ◽

pp. 219-223

Author(s):

R. Choquet ◽

C. Daniel ◽

Keyword(s):

Clinical Research ◽

Data Privacy ◽

Design Stage ◽

Editorial Team ◽

Legal Requirements ◽

Double Blind ◽

Blind Review ◽

Healthcare Data ◽

Clinical Research Informatics ◽

Electronic Health

Summary Objectives: To summarize key contributions to current research in the field of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) and to select best papers published in 2015. Method: A bibliographic search using a combination of MeSH and free terms search over PubMed on Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) was performed followed by a double-blind review in order to select a list of candidate best papers to be then peer-reviewed by external reviewers. A consensus meeting between the two section editors and the editorial team was finally organized to conclude on the selection of best papers. Results: Among the 579 returned papers published in the past year in the various areas of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) - i) methods supporting clinical research, ii) data sharing and interoperability, iii) re-use of healthcare data for research, iv) patient recruitment and engagement, v) data privacy, security and regulatory issues and vi) policy and perspectives - the full review process selected four best papers. The first selected paper evaluates the capability of the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) Operational Data Model (ODM) to support the representation of case report forms (in both the design stage and with patient level data) during a complete clinical study lifecycle. The second selected paper describes a prototype for secondary use of electronic health records data captured in non-standardized text. The third selected paper presents a privacy preserving electronic health record linkage tool and the last selected paper describes how big data use in US relies on access to health information governed by varying and often misunderstood legal requirements and ethical considerations. Conclusions: A major trend in the 2015 publications is the analysis of observational, “nonexperimental” information and the potential biases and confounding factors hidden in the data that will have to be carefully taken into account to validate new predictive models. In addiction, researchers have to understand complicated and sometimes contradictory legal requirements and to consider ethical obligations in order to balance privacy and promoting discovery.

Download Full-text