scholarly journals The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R)

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 13
Author(s):  
Ahmad Yaman Abdin ◽  
Muhammad Jawad Nasim ◽  
Yannick Ney ◽  
Claus Jacob
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Single Blind

Scientists observe, discover, justify and eventually share their findings with the scientific community. Dissemination is an integral aspect of scientific discovery, since discoveries which go unnoticed have no or little impact on science. Today, peer review is part of this process of scientific dissemination as it contributes proactively to the quality of a scientific article. As the numbers of scientific journals and scientific articles published therein are increasing steadily, processes such as the single-blind or double-blind peer review are facing a near collapse situation. In fact, these traditional forms of reviewing have reached their limits and, because of this, are also increasingly considered as unfair, sloppy, superficial and even biased. In this manuscript, we propose forms of post-publication public peer review (P4R) as valuable alternatives to the traditional blind peer review system. We describe how the journal Sci has explored such an approach and provide first empirical evidence of the benefits and also challenges, such a P4R approach faces.

scholarly journals The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad Yaman Abdin ◽  
Muhmmad Jawad Nasim ◽  
Yannick Ney ◽  
Claus Jacob
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Single Blind

Scientists observe, discover, justify and eventually share their findings with the scientific community. Dissemination is an integral aspect of scientific discovery since discoveries which go unnoticed have no or little impact on science. Today, peer-review is part of this process of scientific dissemination as it contributes proactively to the quality of a scientific article. As the numbers of scientific journals and scientific articles published therein are increasing steady, processes such as the single-blind or double-blind peer review are facing a near collapse situation. In fact, these traditional forms of reviewing have reached their limits and, because of this, are also increasingly considered as unfair, sloppy, superficial and even biased. In this manuscript we propose forms of Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R) as valuable alternatives to the traditional blind peer review system. We describe how the journal Sci has explored such an approach and provide first empirical evidence of the benefits and also challenges such a P4R approach is facing.

A different method of teaching peer review systems.

1998 ◽  
Vol 274 (6) ◽  
pp. S57 ◽  
Author(s):  
J T Lightfoot
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Knowledge Bases ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Open Review ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
A Current

Students often have difficulty grasping the advantages of the various peer review systems used in scientific publishing. In the described exercise, students are assigned a current study and then write three two-page critiques of the article. The three critiques occur at different times in the semester, and thus the students have differing knowledge bases. The critiques are then assigned to other students for peer review using the double-blind, single-blind, or open review systems. After the submission of each peer review, the class discusses the various advantages and disadvantages of each peer review system. In addition to experiencing peer review, in using this method students also gain an appreciation for the difficulty of judging the merit of a peer's work.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2045 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Check System ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Single Blind

Abstract All conference organisers/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 Single-blind peer review • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? The reviewers provide their constructive & detailed comments and suggestions on the manuscripts via the conference peer review system. The Authors were asked to revise their original manuscripts in alignment with the reviewers’ comments and suggestions for publication. An opportunity will be given to the authors to resubmit their manuscripts after revisions. • Conference submission management system: http://www.academicconf.com/Identity/Account/Login?confName=cmse2021 • Number of submissions received: 185 (include abstracts and full papers) • Number of submissions sent for review: 85 (full papers) • Number of submissions accepted: 34 (full papers) • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 40.0% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: About 160 • Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system): The conference uses iThenticate to check plagiarism. All papers were checked once submitted and were checked again before they are sent to the Publisher for publication. • Contact person for queries: Guest editor: Dr. Alexander Khotsianovsky [email protected] Managing Editor of Strength of Materials Pisarenko Institute of Problems of Strength of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2056 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
State University ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Organizations ◽  
Virtual Conference ◽  
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) Single-blind • Conference submission management system: Morressier virtual conference and publishing platform • Number of submissions received: 76 • Number of submissions sent for review: 76 • Number of submissions accepted: 71 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 93.4 • Average number of reviews per paper: 1 • Total number of reviewers involved: 8 • Any additional info on review process: Typical review questionnaire like in leading scientific journals and detailed review about value and novelty of the publications reviewed. The Referees are from universities and scientific organizations from Russia, Byelorussia, China, Canada, India. • Contact person for queries: Name : Professor Victor Belyaev Affiliation: Moscow Region State University (MRSU) Email : [email protected]

SU-E-T-211: Peer Review System for Ensuring Quality of Radiation Therapy Treatments

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (6Part13) ◽  
pp. 3751-3752
Author(s):  
R Kapoor ◽  
P Kapur ◽  
SA Kumar ◽  
D Alex ◽  
S Ranka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2131 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Peter The Great ◽  
Scientific Organizations ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

Abstract 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) An international scientific committee selected papers corresponding to the following criteria: a paper should have more than 8 pages and contain new scientific results, which are in the thematic area of the conference. Next, each selected paper underwent scientific peer review and technical check. The type of peer review was double-blind scientific peer review. At least 3 reviewers from different scientific organizations participated in the review of one paper. In case of disagreement between the reviewers, additional reviewers were involved. All papers are also checked for plagiarism, image quality and quality of the English language. • Conference submission management system: Open Journal System • Number of submissions received: 1240 • Number of submissions sent for review: 1157 • Number of submissions accepted: 493 Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 39.75 • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 reviewers per paper • Total number of reviewers involved: 132 • Any additional info on review process: Contact person for queries: Name: Vera Murgul Affiliation: Peter the Great St.Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia Email: [email protected]

scholarly journals Reviewing articles as a way of professional evaluation of scientific texts: organizational and ethical aspects

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-36
Author(s):  
Svitlana Fiialka ◽  
Olga Trishchuk ◽  
Nadija Figol
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Ethical Aspects ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Texts ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Professional Evaluation ◽  
Single Blind

The purpose of the paper is to summarize the organizational and ethical aspects, problems and prospects of peer reviewing. To do this, from September 2019 to January 2020, a survey of Ukrainian scientists registered in Facebook groups “Ukrainian Scientific Journals”, “Ukrainian Scientists Worldwide”, “Pseudoscience News in Ukraine”, “Higher Education and Science of Ukraine: Decay or Blossom?” and others was conducted. In total, 390 researchers from different disciplines participated in the survey. The results of the survey are following: 8.7% of respondents prefer open peer review, 43.1% – single-blind, 37.7% – double blind, 9.2% – triple blind, 1.3% used to sign a review prepared by the author. 75.6% of respondents had conflicts of interest during peer reviewing. 8.2 % of reviewers never reject articles regardless of their quality. Because usually only editors and authors see reviews, it can lead to the following issues: reviewers can be rude or biased; authors may not adequately respond to grounded criticism; editors may disregard the position of the author or reviewer, and journals may charge for publishing articles without proper peer review.

scholarly journals EVALUATION OF MULTIFUNCTIONALITY IN COSMETICS

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evren ALGIN YAPAR ◽  
Aslı ŞAHİNER ◽  
Bilge Ahsen KARA ◽  
Sümeyra TUNA YILDIRIM ◽  
Ece HALAT ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Cosmetic Products ◽  
Review System ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
Unique System ◽  
Cosmetic Ingredients ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
Review Reports

In recent years, developments in the field of cosmetic ingredients especially use of natural sources and carriers systems and the manufacturing methods resulted as an improvement in the effect and stability of cosmetics, and thus the performance and component-based multi-functionalities of cosmetic products. Those have partially contributed to the condition-dependent functionality, developments in the field of marketing, monitoring of expectations and their reflection on marketing and the creation of new ideas in the field of claim-driven multi-functionality. Multi-functionality in cosmetic products can be evaluated in four groups. These are performance-based multi-functionality, component-based multi-functionality, conditional multi-functionality and claim-driven multi-functionality. In the first two groups, performance related to formulation and manufacturing comes to the fore, while in the last two, safety becomes important and those are briefly given in this review.                    Peer Review History: Received: 12 May 2021; Revised: 11 June; Accepted: 25 June, Available online: 15 July 2021 Academic Editor: Ahmad Najib, Universitas Muslim Indonesia, Makassar, Indonesia, [email protected] UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency.  Received file:                Reviewer's Comments: Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 6.0/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 7.5/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Dr. Govind Vyas, Compliance & Regulatory Officer Inva-Tech Pharmaceuticals LLC, New-Jersey, USA, [email protected] Dr. Mohammad Bayan,  Faculty of Pharmacy, Philadelphia University, P.O. Box: 1 Philadelphia University 19392 Jordan, [email protected] Dr. Sally A. El-Zahaby, Pharos University in Alexandria, Egypt, [email protected]  

"They Must Be Analyzed". The Theory’s Empire and the Challenge of the Transcultural Humanities

Tekstualia ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (35) ◽  
pp. 115-122
Author(s):  
Ewa Łukaszyk
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Active Participation ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Production Of Knowledge ◽  
Global Problem ◽  
The World ◽  
New Form

Analytic practices in the humanities have been gradually transformed into a new form of symbolic oppression. Open access download and indiscriminate consumption do not automatically imply an equal active participation in the debate. Apparently, the „democratic” rules and procedures behind the production of knowledge, such as a double-blind peer-review system, are not as innocent as they seem. Andrzej Walicki has pointed out that Polish scholars may have to face continuing hindrances, which should be interpreted not only as a result of their personal insuffi ciency, but as an epiphenomenon of a global problem: they remain in the shadow of the Theory’s Empire. The necessity of creating new networks of exchange is thus evident, and so is the task of rethinking the concept of „the world” in order to guarantee participation and visibility.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2104 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Content Review ◽  
Single Blind

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]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document