scholarly journals Rejection rate and reasons for rejection after peer review: a case study of a Russian economics journal

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evgueniya A Balyakina ◽  
Ludmila A Kriventsova
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Rejection Rate ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Review Reports

 Background:  Peer review remains the only way of filtering and improving research. However, there are few studies of peer review based on the contents of review reports, because access to these reports is limited. Objectives: To measure the rejection rate and to investigate the reasons for rejection after peer-review in a specialized scientific journal.  Methods:  We considered the manuscripts submitted to a Russian journal, namely ‘Economy of Region’ (Rus Экономика региона), from 2016 to 2018, and analysed the double-blind review reports related to rejected submissions in qualitative and quantitative terms including descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 1653 submissions from 2016 to 2018, 324 (20%) were published, giving an average rejection rate of 80%. Content analysis of reviewer reports showed five categories of shortcomings in the manuscripts: breaches of publication ethics, mismatch with the journal’s research area, weak research reporting (a major group, which accounted for 66%of the total); lack of novelty, and design errors. We identified two major problems in the peer-review process that require editorial correction: in 36% of the cases, the authors did not send the revised version of the manuscript to the journal after receiving editorial comments and in 30% of the cases, the reviewers made contradictory recommendations. Conclusions: To obtain a more balanced evaluation from experts and to avoid paper losses the editorial team should revise the journal’s instructions to authors, its guide to reviewers, and the form of the reviewer’s report by indicating the weightings assigned to the different criteria and by describing in detail the criteria for a good paper.

scholarly journals Peer review blinding practices of highly ranked dental journals: analysis and discussion

BDJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Lower Odds ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Single Blind

AbstractObjectives To evaluate the type of peer review blinding used in highly ranked dental journals and to discuss the influence of the blinding approaches on the peer review process.Methods All 91 dental journals classified by impact factor (IF) had their websites scrutinised for the type of peer review blinding used for submissions. If the information was not reported, the journals were contacted to obtain the information. Linear and logistic regression were applied to evaluate the association between type of peer review blinding and IF.Results The selected journals reported the following peer review blinding approaches: single-blind (N = 36, 39.6%), double-blind (N = 46, 50.5%), transparent (N = 2, 2.2%) and open (N = 1, 1.1%). Information from six (6.6%) journals was not available. A linear regression analysis demonstrated that journals with lower IFs were associated with double-blind review (p = 0.001). A logistic regression suggested lower odds of association between single-blind peer review and journals with IFs below a threshold of 2 (odds ratio 0.157, confidence interval 0.059 to 0.417, p <0.001).Conclusions The majority of highly ranked dental journals had single- and double-blind peer review; journals with higher IFs presented single-blind peer review and those with lower IFs reported double-blind peer review.

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration Form Guidance

2021 ◽  
Vol 918 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Full Paper ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Conference Series ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Galley Proof

On the following page you will find the declaration form. • Please answer each question. • You should submit the form along with the rest of your submission files. • The deadline is the submission date written in your publishing agreement. All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. We will published the information you provide as part of your proceedings. Peer review declaration 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: Double-blind The 2nd International Symposium on Arboriculture in the Tropics: Trees and Human Health (The 2nd ISATrop2021) Editorial team used a double-blind review, where both the reviewer (scientific committee) and author identities were concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Only the editor knows the name of this reviewer and author. The list of Scientific committees has been determined before the symposium takes place and was ratified in the form of a Letter of Assignment. • Conference submission management system: The registration mechanism for the 2nd ISATrop2021 for participants, both non-presenters and oral presenters was carried out via online submission with the form provided on the arboriculture website ( https://arborikultur.ipb.ac.id/registration/ ). Abstracts for presenters are also uploaded when filling out the registration form. Speakers and participants can monitor and communicate with symposium organizers via email [email protected] and WhatsApp with contact person Ulfa Adzkia, S.Hut, M.Si as the symposium secretary (+62 822 6245 4154). Participants who have presented their papers at the 2nd ISATrop2021 on 21-22 June 2021, can then submit full papers via email [email protected] to the 2nd ISATrop2021 Editorial Team. • Number of submissions received: 62 • Number of submissions sent for review: 53 • Number of submissions accepted: 53 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 85.48% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 papers • Total number of reviewers involved: 27 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: - Full papers that have been received by the 2nd ISATrop2021 Editorial Team via email [email protected] from the participants have been going through a peer review mechanism as follows: 1. The Editor Team allocates 1-3 papers to the 2nd ISATrop2021 Scientific Committees (reviewers). 2. Each full paper along with the review form was sent to each reviewer via email [email protected]. 3. The review and revision process were continued until the full paper is declared “Accepted by No Revision” by the reviewer. 4. Full Paper that has been Accepted by Revision, then processed for plagiarism checking by TURNITIN, proofread checking by the proofreader team, and layout checking by the layout team. 5. While waiting for the proof read and layout check results, the author was asked to submit a “Statement of Originality form” via email. The form template was provided by the editor team. 6. The results of the proofread and layout in the form of “Galley Proof Draft” were then sent back to the author via email. 7. Galley Proof Draft that has been checked and corrected by the author, then sent back to the editor team via email. 8. The final layout team then rechecks the full paper to ensure that the format is in accordance with the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science format. • Contact person for queries: Name : Fifi Gus Dwiyanti Affiliation: Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, IPB University Email : [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review analysis in the field of radiation oncology: results from a web-based survey of the Young DEGRO working group

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas Käsmann ◽  
◽  
Annemarie Schröder ◽  
Benjamin Frey ◽  
Daniel F. Fleischmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Scientific Content ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Scientific Background

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the reviewing behaviour in the German-speaking countries in order to provide recommendations to increase the attractiveness of reviewing activity in the field of radiation oncology. Methods In November 2019, a survey was conducted by the Young DEGRO working group (jDEGRO) using the online platform “eSurveyCreator”. The questionnaire consisted of 29 items examining a broad range of factors that influence reviewing motivation and performance. Results A total of 281 responses were received. Of these, 154 (55%) were completed and included in the evaluation. The most important factors for journal selection criteria and peer review performance in the field of radiation oncology are the scientific background of the manuscript (85%), reputation of the journal (59%) and a high impact factor (IF; 40%). Reasons for declining an invitation to review include the scientific background of the article (60%), assumed effort (55%) and a low IF (27%). A double-blind review process is preferred by 70% of respondents to a single-blind (16%) or an open review process (14%). If compensation was offered, 59% of participants would review articles more often. Only 12% of the participants have received compensation for their reviewing activities so far. As compensation for the effort of reviewing, 55% of the respondents would prefer free access to the journal’s articles, 45% a discount for their own manuscripts, 40% reduced congress fees and 39% compensation for expenses. Conclusion The scientific content of the manuscript, reputation of the journal and a high IF determine the attractiveness for peer reviewing in the field of radiation oncology. The majority of participants prefer a double-blind peer review process and would conduct more reviews if compensation was available. Free access to journal articles, discounts for publication costs or congress fees, or an expense allowance were identified to increase attractiveness of the review process.

scholarly journals Choosing the scientific journal for publishing research work: perceptions of medical and dental researchers

2017 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nagarajappa Sandesh ◽  
Shilpa Wahrekar
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Publishing House ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Rejection Rate ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Online Submission

Background and aim. With the increasing demand to publish due to ‘publish or perish’ culture among research and academic institutions, the choice of a journal for publishing scientific articles becomes very important. A publication with many citations and high impact factor can propel researchers in their academic careers. The aim of this study is to explore the perceptions of medical and dental researchers in India about the important criteria to consider while selecting scientific journals for publishing their research.Methods. 206 faculty staff members from three medical and five dental institutions were selected through convenience sampling. The study participants completed a questionnaire with 24 closed ended questions on various factors related to journal selection for publication. Factors such as publication frequency, journal citation, indexing, peer-review, impact factor, publication fees, acceptance or rejection rate, publishing house, previous submission and online submission process were considered. The responses were recorded using a Likert scale. Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency or homogeneity was 0.909. Descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney U test were employed for comparison of responses among study participants.Results. The mean weight of 24 criteria on a scale of 0 to 4 varied between 2.13 and 3.45. The results showed that indexing of journal (3.45±0.74), online submission (3.24±0.83), impact factor (3.11±0.91), peer-review process (3.0±1.02) and publication fees (2.99±1.11) were among the most important criteria to consider in journal selection.Conclusions Of the 24 factors considered by health researchers for journal selection, the most important were Journal indexing, online submission, impact factor, peer-review and publication fees. Compared to dental researchers, medical researchers perceived open access and peer-review process as significantly more important criteria.

scholarly journals Revealing reviewers` identities as part of open peer-review and analysis of the review reports

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cezary Bolek ◽  
Dejan Marolov ◽  
Monika Bolek ◽  
Jovan Shopovski
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Research Article ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Open Review ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Peer Review Procedure

This research article is aimed at comparing review reports in which the identity of the reviewers is revealed to the authors of the papers with those where the reviewers decided to remain anonymous. The review reports are gathered as part of the peer review process of the European Scientific Journal (ESJ). This journal maintains a single-blind peer review procedure and optional open review. Reviewers are familiar with the names of the authors but not vice versa. When sending the review reports, the reviewers can opt to reveal their identity to the authors. 343 review reports from members of the ESJ editorial board, gathered within the period of May to July 2019, were analyzed. The data analysis was performed using Python programing language based on NumPy, Pandas, and Scipy packages.Half of the reviewers decided to choose the open option and reveal their names to the authors of the papers. The other half remained anonymous. The results show that female reviewers more often decide to remain anonymous than their male colleagues. However, there is no significant difference in the review reports on the basis of gender or country of institutional affiliation of the reviewers. Revealing identity did not make difference in reviewers’ point appraisal in the review reports. This difference was not significant. However, majority of the reviewers who recommended rejection in their review reports were not willing to reveal their identities. Even more, those reviewers who revealed their identity were more likely to recommend acceptance without revision or minor revision in their review reports.

scholarly journals Reviewers’ Perceptions of the Peer Review Process in Journalism and Mass Communication

2017 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 278-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Curtin ◽  
John Russial ◽  
Alec Tefertiller
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Mass Communication ◽  
Career Advancement ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Helping Others ◽  
Intrinsic Motivations

This survey of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) scholars ( N = 547; response rate = 39.3%) examines perceptions of peer review, a study last undertaken in 1990. Respondents rated intrinsic motivations, such as helping others, more highly than extrinsic motivations, such as reviewing as a consideration for career advancement. Respondents believed they did a significantly better job as reviewers than did scholars who reviewed their work. More experienced reviewers saw their role as balanced between critic and coach, whereas less experienced reviewers saw their role as significantly more critical. Overall, respondents were ambivalent about the state of peer review, yet they resisted adopting approaches other than double-blind review.

The Case For and Against Double-blind Reviews

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amelia R Cox ◽  
Robert Montgomerie
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Behavioral Ecology ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Female Authors ◽  
Female Authorship ◽  
Blind Reviews ◽  
Single Blind

To date, the majority of authors on scientific publications have been men. While much of this gender bias can be explained by historic sexism and discrimination, there is concern that women may still be disadvantaged by the peer review process if reviewers' unconscious biases lead them to reject publications with female authors more often. One potential solution to this perceived gender bias in the reviewing process is for journals to adopt double-blind reviews whereby neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities and genders. To test the efficacy of double-blind reviews, we assigned gender to every authorship of every paper published in 5 different journals with different peer review processes (double-blind vs. single blind) and subject matter (birds vs. behavioral ecology) from 2010-2018 (n = 4865 papers). While female authorships comprised only 35% of the total, the double-blind journal Behavioral Ecology did not have more female authorships than its single-blind counterparts. Interestingly, the incidence of female authorship is higher at behavioral ecology journals (Behavioral Ecology and Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology) than in the ornithology journals (Auk, Condor, Ibis), for papers on all topics as well as those on birds. These analyses suggest that double-blind review does not currently increase the incidence of female authorship in the journals studied here. We conclude, at least for these journals, that double-blind review does not benefit female authors and may, in the long run, be detrimental.

scholarly journals Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth C Moylan ◽  
Simon Harold ◽  
Ciaran O’Neill ◽  
Maria K Kowalczuk
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Single Blind

scholarly journals Clinical Research Informatics Contributions from 2015

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document