The Design and Implementation of Tamper Resistant Grading Function in the Science and Technology Awarding Review System

2012 ◽  
Vol 430-432 ◽  
pp. 869-872
Author(s):  
Chang Xia Hu ◽  
Xiao Xing Liu ◽  
Xin Na Ma
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Review System ◽  
Design And Implementation ◽  
Safety Protection

In the process of scientific and technical awarding review each phase involves a lot of score information. In order to embody the fairness and impartiality of review process, the safety protection of score data is particularly important. Through the research of scientific and technical awarding review system’s characteristics, this paper adopts a tamper resistant technology suitable for the system to guarantee the security of the scores. Practice proves that the use of these techniques greatly enhance the security and stability of the system.

The Research and Implementation of Expert Identity Authentication Technology in the Science and Technology Awarding Review System

2012 ◽  
Vol 430-432 ◽  
pp. 1682-1685
Author(s):  
Yin Hua Ma ◽  
Xiao Xing Liu ◽  
Chang Xia Hu
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Identity Authentication ◽  
Sensitive Information ◽  
Review System ◽  
Sensitive Data ◽  
Safety Protection ◽  
Technology Practice ◽  
Authentication Technology

In the process of scientific and technical awarding review each phase involves a lot of sensitive information. In order to embody the fairness and impartiality of review process, the safety protection of sensitive data is particularly important. This paper starts from the identity authentication, designs and implement second check technology. Practice proves that the use of these techniques greatly enhance the security and stability of the system.

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration Form Guidance

2021 ◽  
Vol 2062 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Communication Engineering ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Submission Date

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 publish the information you provide as part of your proceedings. Peer review declaration 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: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: Easy Chair • Number of submissions received: 97 • Number of submissions sent for review: 73 • Number of submissions accepted: 38 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 39.17% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 51 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Name : Dr. Nishu Gupta Affiliation: Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, India Email : [email protected]

scholarly journals Analytic Review as a Solution to the Misreporting of Statistical Results in Psychological Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Kitchener Sakaluk ◽  
Alexander Williams ◽  
Monica Biernat
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Data File ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Review System ◽  
Efficient Manner ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Secondary Benefits ◽  
Analytic Review ◽  
Statistical Results

We propose analytic review as a solution to the problem of misreporting statistical results in psychological science. Analytic review requires authors submitting manuscripts for publication to also submit the data file and syntax used during analyses. Regular reviewers or statistical experts then review reported analyses, in order to verify that the analyses reported were actually conducted, and that the statistical values are accurately reported. We begin by describing the problem of misreporting in psychology, and then introduce the basic analytic review process. We then highlight both primary and secondary benefits of adopting analytic review, and describe different permutations of the analytic review system, each with its own strengths and limitations. We conclude by attempting to dispel three anticipated concerns about analytic review, namely: analytic review will increase the workload placed on scholars, analytic review will infringe on the traditional peer-review process, and analytic review will hurt the image of the discipline of psychology. Although implementing analytic review will add one more step to the bureaucratic publication process, we believe it can be implemented in an efficient manner that would greatly assist in decreasing the frequency and impact of misreporting, while also providing secondary benefits in other domains of scientific integrity.

IMPROVING THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

2021 ◽  
pp. 82-83
Author(s):  
Oluwole Gbolagunte Ajao ◽  
Adekola Alao
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Administrative Positions ◽  
Selection Of

SUMMARY: The peer review process has been regarded as an essential part of accepting or rejecting a paper for publication since 1752 when the process was started by The Royal Society of London in the publication entitled “Philosophical Transactions”. In developing countries, one of the primary reasons for submitting pieces for publication is to support promotion in universities. In fact, the argument can be made that the only reason for publishing in developing countries is for faculty promotion. Despite the peer review process being standard practice for scientic journals, many of the research publications on COVID-19 were not subjected to the peer review system. In fact, numerous publications were pre-prints and papers shared by researchers online which were not peer reviewed, yet they were accepted and published by scientic journals in developing nations. When authors start to lose condence in the peer review process of a journal, they are not likely to submit their research work to such journals and this can lead to a diminished impact and reputation of such journals. Additionally, the selection of the assessors by the Editor-in -Chief is usually from the academic space of the editor and from the colleagues of the editor that usually share the editor's view. Contrary to what some editors in the developing countries believe, medical and academic administrative positions do not necessarily result in expertise in the peer review process. An editor can easily identify a poor assessment of an article, from the vitriolic feed-back of the author to the editor about an assessor when a paper is not recommended for publication. This paper provides evidence of and outlines the possible reasons that the peer review process is substandard in developing countries.

Exploring Science and Technology Review Mechanisms Under the Biological Weapons Convention

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Revill ◽  
◽  
Alisha Anand ◽  
Giacomo Persi Paoli
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Biological Weapons ◽  
Review Mechanism ◽  
Biological Weapons Convention ◽  
Technology Review

Since the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) opened for signature in 1972, biology and other converging disciplines have advanced considerably. These changes could have profound implications for a science-based disarmament agreement like the BWC. To address changes in biology and biotechnology, BWC States Parties have established processes to review developments in science and technology (S&T), including annual expert meetings on this topic. However, shortcomings are evident in the current approaches and many BWC States Parties have expressed support for a more systematic review of science and technology under the Convention. This study seeks to inform discussions on establishing a dedicated and systematic S&T review process under the BWC through an examination of existing S&T review-type mechanisms employed in different regimes beyond the BWC, a survey of States Parties views on a possible review mechanism and a study of past and present discourse on this issue in the BWC. Based on the analysis conducted, this study also presents options for BWC States Parties to consider ahead of the Ninth BWC Review Conference.

Student Perceptions of the Peer Review Process in Student Writing Projects

1997 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark G. Simkin ◽  
Nari K. Ramarapu
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Student Perceptions ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Total Quality ◽  
Review System ◽  
Student Views ◽  
Term Papers ◽  
High Degree

The process of academic peer review—i.e., students evaluating each other's work—can help instructors address a host of higher institutional objectives, not the least of which is the total quality management of collegiate teaching. But more is known about this process from the viewpoint of instructors than from the perspective of students. The purpose of this study was to formally examine student views of a specific peer-review system in which undergraduates assigned final grades to each other's term papers. A survey instrument revealed a high degree of comfort with the process, as well as some insights into why a few students were uncomfortable with it.

scholarly journals Advances in Neuroscience and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm Dando
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Review System ◽  
Potential Threat

This paper investigates the potential threat to the prohibition of the hostile misuse of the life sciences embodied in the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention from the rapid advances in the field of neuroscience. The paper describes how the implications of advances in science and technology are considered at the Five Year Review Conferences of the Convention and how State Parties have developed their appreciations since the First Review Conference in 1980. The ongoing advances in neurosciences are then assessed and their implications for the Convention examined. It is concluded that State Parties should consider a much more regular and systematic review system for such relevant advances in science and technology when they meet at the Seventh Review Conference in late 2011, and that neuroscientists should be much more informed and engaged in these processes of protecting their work from malign misuse.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document