scholarly journals RETRACTION: The biological mechanism involved in anticancer properties of amniotic membrane

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Camillo Porta
Keyword(s):  
Amniotic Membrane ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Biological Mechanism ◽  
Plagiarism Detection ◽  
Biological Mechanisms ◽  
Anticancer Properties ◽  
Detection Software

To our readers: With deep regrets, we inform our Readers that the article The biological mechanism involved in anticancer properties of amniotic membrane (DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/oncol.2020.429), which has been published in the current issue of Oncology Reviews (2020-1), contains verbatim text plagiarized from another paper.1 The manuscript must be considered as retracted. On behalf of the Editorial Board of Oncology Reviews, I apologize to the Author of the manuscript whose text was plagiarized by Ameneh Jafari, Hassan Niknejad, Mostafa Rezaei-Tavirani, Caitlin D’Amico, Hakimeh Zali that this was not picked up in the peer review process. I also apologize to the affected journal for the violation of copyright due to plagiarism. Unfortunately we were not able to detect it before publication due to the language of the original paper (Slovenian). Oncology Reviews is uncompromising in its commitment to scientific integrity. When credible evidence of misconduct is brought to our attention, our commitment to the scientific record and to our readership requires immediate notification. Oncology Reviews is increasingly employing sophisticated software to detect plagiarism. Other journals use similar tools. Authors should be aware that most journals routinely employ plagiarism detection software, and that any plagiarism is likely to be detected. Camillo Porta, Editor-in-Chief Oncology Reviews   Reference1. Ramuta TZ, Cirman T, Erdani Kreft M. Celično-biološki mehanizmi delovanja amnijske membrane proti raku in možnosti za njeno uporabo pri zdravljenju raka [Cell-biological mechanisms of amniotic membrane anticancer activity and the possibilities of its use in anticancer therapy]. Slovenian Medical Journal (Zdravniški vestnik) 2018;87(9-10):483-92. (DOI: 10.6016/ZdravVestn.2674).

scholarly journals RETRACTION: Pain in systemic sclerosis

Reumatismo ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 120
Author(s):  
M.A. Cimmino
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Sclerosis ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Plagiarism Detection ◽  
Detection Software

To our readers: With deep regrets, we inform that the article Pain in systemic sclerosis (DOI: https:// doi.org/10.4081/reumatismo.2014.764), which has been published in Reumatismo (2014; 66(1): 44-47), contains verbatim text plagiarized from another paper. The manuscript must be considered as retracted.On behalf of the Editorial Board of Reumatismo, I apologize to the Author of the manuscript whose text was plagiarized by Stisi et al. that this was not picked up in the peer review process. I also apologize to the affected journal for the violation of copyright due to plagiarism. Reumatismo is uncompromising in its commitment to scientific integrity. When credible evidence of misconduct is brought to our attention, our commitment to the scientific record and to our readership requires immediate notification. Reumatismo is increasingly employing sophisticated software to detect plagiarism. Other journals use similar tools. Authors should be aware that most journals routinely employ plagiarism detection software, and that any plagiarism is likely to be detected.Marco A. CimminoEditor-in-ChiefReumatismo

scholarly journals RETRACTION: Challenges of combined everolimus/endocrine therapy in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camillo Porta
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Endocrine Therapy ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Plagiarism Detection ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive

To our readers:With deep regrets, we inform our Readers that the article Challenges of combined everolimus/endocrine therapy in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/oncol.2014.236), which has been published Ahead of Print in the first issue of Oncology Reviews (2014), contains verbatim text plagiarized from another paper.1The manuscript must be considered as retracted. On behalf of the Editorial Board of Oncology Reviews, I apologize to the Author of the manuscript whose text was plagiarized by Y. Abubakr and Y. Albushra that this was not picked up in the peer review process. I also apologize to the affected journal for the violation of copyright due to plagiarism. Oncology Reviews is uncompromising in its commitment to scientific integrity. When credible evidence of misconduct is brought to our attention, our commitment to the scientific record and to our readership requires immediate notification. Oncology Reviews is increasingly employing sophisticated software to detect plagiarism. Other journals use similar tools. Authors should be aware that most journals routinely employ plagiarism detection software, and that any plagiarism is likely to be detected.Camillo Porta, Editor-in-Chief Oncology Reviews Reference 1. André F. Enhancing effectiveness of endocrine therapy in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. Medscape Education Oncology. CME Released: 05/24/2013; Valid for credit through 05/24/2014. http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/804496

scholarly journals From the Desk of Editor

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Arun Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Turnaround Time ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Late Response ◽  
Medical Sciences

Dear All Associated Users of AJMS: It gives us immense pleasure to publish the current issue of AJMS Vol 12 No 1 (2021). We started our journey from 2010 with an online edition of AJMS. Slowly we progressed with the support of our committed and strong team of Editorial board members and launched the printed edition in the year 2015 and we further expanded our publication frequency from quarterly issue to bimonthly issue. With the overwhelming response and support from our users, we now take a leap to publish monthly issue from this year (2021) onwards.  With the current expansion of edition, we make it clear that we have not made any compromise in the quality of articles which we publish in AJMS. We have been striving hard to serve the potential authors who has entrusted on us and chosen our journal to publish their manuscripts, making our journal as their journal of choice! On submission, the manuscripts are assigned to editor and section editor for initial review process, followed by assigning the manuscript to three reviewers of which two are internal reviewers and one outside the editorial board (external reviewer). The blind review process in our journal takes six to eight weeks’, sometimes even earlier depending on the reviewers and the decision is made once the review report is submitted to the editor. Sometimes the delay in turnaround time happens which is unavoidable due to late response from reviewers and from the authors. We insist the authors to communicate with the editor soon the review reports are sent to them for revisions. This would further shrink the time of publication from submission. The reviewers and the editorial board members are solely responsible for taking initial decision of the article but the final decision is based on the Editor. The best part of our journal is we respond to each and every author promptly and do not ignore any queries.  The details of the journal can be viewed by clicking the links of particular sections- Focus and Scope, Peer Review Process, Open Access Policy, Publication Frequency, Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of Asian Journal of Medical Sciences, Duties of Reviewers, Duties of Authors, Indexing of Asian Journal of Medical Sciences can be viewed by this link-https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/AJMS/about Submission Preparation Checklist, Author Guidelines, Plagiarism Policy can be viewed by following this link-https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/AJMS/about/submissions Authors are advised to go through the guidelines and then submit their manuscripts We look forward to further enhance the quality of article in AJMS and we will strive hard to ensure this journal goes global, in the future. Thank you all for your support and entrusting on us. Prof. Dr. Arun Kumar Editor-in-Chief, Asian Journal of Medical Sciences

scholarly journals Perspectives for early-career researchers on plagiarism and scientific integrity

FACETS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-25
Author(s):  
Robert G. Young ◽  
T. Fatima Mitterboeck
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Investigation ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Early Career Researchers

Lapses in scientific integrity, such as plagiarism, persist in the scientific realm. To be successful and contributory, early-career researchers (ECRs), including graduate students, need to be able to effectively navigate the literature, peer-review process, and scientific research with integrity. Here we discuss different aspects of scientific integrity related to ECRs. Our discussion centres on the concepts of plagiarism and intellectual property, predatory journals, aspects of peer review, transparency in publishing, and false advanced accreditations. Negative elements within these topics may be especially damaging to ECRs, who may be less familiar with the research landscape. We highlight the need for ECRs to approach scientific investigation cautiously and thoughtfully to promote integrity through critical thinking.

scholarly journals Chief Editor's Voice

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Prof. Dr. Ashok Kumar Jha
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Research Journal ◽  
Service Commission ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Double Blinded

The RMC of the campus feels much pleasure to publish the annual multi-disciplinary peer reviewed research journal DRISTIKON as vol. 11(1). The journal and the articles published in it are clear evidence and fulfill the requirements laid down by UGC, Nepal, Tribhuvan University Service Commission, APA 7th ed. and other platforms. The journal is designed to serve as an outlet for an intellectual forum for the communication of intellectual ideas among professionals and other social scientists in relevant areas in general and with special reference to Nepal. The board welcomes all the professionals, researchers and all those interested to publish their research findings with significant contribution to society, education sector and international platform. Authors are also encouraged to submit papers which are related to current international, national or local issues. Almost all the scholarly and research articles published in the journal undergo the editorial peer review process prior to publication to fulfill the requirements of peer review process guided by UGC, Nepal and international standard. The goal of the peer review process is to ensure that the valid article is accepted, the messy article cleaned up, and the invalid article rejected. The board of editors has accepted the reviewer’s recommendations. All the articles submitted for publication are subjected to rigorous double blinded peer review to ensure its quality before it gets published.  Manuscripts submitted to this journal must not have been published or accepted for publication or submitted for publication elsewhere. The journal strictly follows guidelines of APA 7th ed. as well as strongly opposes plagiarized contents without proper citation. Following the necessary corrections and additions resulting from the review process the twenty accepted papers were included into the issue covering the specific areas of Nepali, English, Political Science, Science and Management. The cooperation extended by scholars and institutions in publishing this journal is highly appreciated. The opinions expressed in the articles are the author’s own and do not reflect the view of either the publisher or the editorial board. All manuscripts once published becomes the property of the publisher. We hope that inspiration and encouragement from the readers will continue to keep the ‘Dristikon’ alive and develop. We are also looking forward to receiving your comments and suggestions for further improvement in the future. We are grateful to the peer reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. The editorial board heartily thanks all the writers who have contributed research articles. We would also like to give special thanks to the campus chief Mr. Damodar Bhandari for his constant support in terms of finance and administration for the publication of this journal.

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.

scholarly journals Editorial for the Inaugural Issue: Grande Medical Journal (GMJ)

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Prakash Kafle
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Editorial Policy ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Clinical Images

We are proud and honored to launch the inaugural issue of our new academic endeavor – Grande Medical Journal (GMJ), published by Academic & Research Department, Grande International Hospital (GIH). GMJ is an annual, open, peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal that encompasses all fields of medicine and clinical practice. GMJ will be published both in print and online. It will be freely accessible via the internet through GIH’s website with open access to the full text of articles. There will be no subscription fees to the readers or processing fees for the authors. Publisher and authors who publish in the journal will jointly retain the copyright to their article. The editorial policy of GMJ will be guided by the high standards of scientific quality and integrity, professional responsibility, and ethical legacy. GMJ follows double-blind peer-review process. This minimizes the possibility of a biased opinion ensuring a responsible and ethical environment. GMJ will be initially published as one issue per year, and with contributions from national and international physicians and scientists, we aim to increase the frequency to two issues per year. GMJ will publish original research, clinical review, invited reviews, case report, clinical problem solving, clinical images, short communications, and editorials. This inaugural issue features fifteen scientific papers - 1 invited review, 3 original researches, 2 clinical reviews, 1 clinical images article, 8 case reports. The editorial board is committed to get the journal indexed in major search engines, indices, and databases to increase their visibility/ searchability and recognition in wider scientific community. For us to achieve these goals, in the forthcoming issues we seek to publish original, high-quality, peerreviewed papers including original clinical and editorials, clinical reviews, and correspondence on matters that will provide comprehensive coverage on all aspects and subspecialties of medicine. We would like to thank everyone who has worked diligently behind the scenes to bring this inaugural issue to fruition. This launch of the GMJ would not have been possible without the contributions from authors, and experienced and devoted reviewers who willingly signed up for timeconsuming workloads and enthusiastically agreed to provide their critical input to the review process. Thank you all for your trust and support. Indeed, it is a real honor to serve as the founding editors. Sincerely Yours,Prakash Kafle, MSEditor-in-Chief

scholarly journals Ensuring Quality and Status: Peer Review Practices in Kriterium, A Portal for Quality-Marked Monographs and Edited Volumes in Swedish SSH

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Björn Hammarfelt ◽  
Isak Hammar ◽  
Helena Francke
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Important Indicator ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Publication Patterns ◽  
Novel Approach

Although established forms of peer review are often criticized for being slow, secretive, and even unfair, they are repeatedly mentioned by academics as the most important indicator of quality in scholarly publishing. In many countries, the peer review of books is a less codified practice than that of journal articles or conference papers, and the processes and actors involved are far from uniform. In Sweden, the review process of books has seldom been formalized. However, more formal peer review of books has been identified as a response to the increasing importance placed on streamlined peer-reviewed publishing of journal articles in English, which has been described as a direct challenge to more pluralistic publication patterns found particularly in the humanities. In this study, we focus on a novel approach to book review, Kriterium, where an independent portal maintained by academic institutions oversees the reviewing of academic books. The portal administers peer reviews, providing a mark of quality through a process which involves reviewers, an academic coordinator, and an editorial board. The paper studies how this process functions in practice by exploring materials concerning 24 scholarly books reviewed within Kriterium. Our analysis specifically targets tensions identified in the process of reviewing books with a focus on three main themes, namely the intended audience, the edited volume, and the novel role of the academic coordinator. Moreover, we find that the two main aims of the portal–quality enhancement (making research better) and certification (displaying that research is of high quality)–are recurrent in deliberations made in the peer review process. Consequently, we argue that reviewing procedures and criteria of quality are negotiated within a broader discussion where more traditional forms of publishing are challenged by new standards and evaluation practices.

scholarly journals Thank You to Our 2020 Reviewers

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kit Sturgess
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Board Meeting ◽  
Diversity And Inclusion ◽  
Strategic Initiatives ◽  
New Information ◽  
First Time

2020 will be a year to remember! One of the standout features for me has been the speed with which ‘science’ has responded to the crisis in terms of developing and disseminating new information to the community highlighting the importance of digital communication – a space that Veterinary Evidence comfortably occupies. The availability of pre peer-reviewed papers has become the norm but it has also emphasised the essential need and benefit of the peer-review process as a significant number of pre-review papers have not made it through to ‘publication’ as issues were identified during the peer-review process. As Editor-in-chief it makes me proud and thankful that Veterinary Evidence has a strong but agile peer-review process and I would like to thank all of our editors and reviewers for their continued support and their diligence in meeting demanding timelines during of these challenging times allowing Veterinary Evidence to publish more content than ever before. Without your highly valued knowledge, expertise and insights Veterinary Evidence would not be growing into the key knowledge source that it is today. The Veterinary Evidence Editorial Board Meeting was held for the first time digitally on 7 December with the largest number of editorial board members able to attend. Members from across the globe were able to take part in wide and varied discussions around the development of the journal, resulting in important strategic initiatives and some key action points to pursue. The availability of the board to attend digitally will facilitate more frequent meetings allowing the journal to be more inclusive, and responsive to the changing landscape, as well as providing a digital recording of the event available for those board members unable to attend. Key areas discussed included development of the format of PICOs and further refining the process for approving them, strategies to encourage engagement and submissions from veterinary nurses, and the development of policies to encourage diversity and inclusion within the board and contributors to the journal, as well as ways to increase the reach of the journal. Having only been Editor-in-chief since September, I have been very impressed by how active and dedicated our reviewers and board members are and how dynamic and forward-looking Veterinary Evidence is as it matures into a key contributor to veterinary literature. None of this would be possible without your support for which I am very grateful.  

scholarly journals Is peer review evolving in the open access environment? A survey of Croatian open access journals

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jadranka Stojanovski ◽  
Ivana Hebrang Grgić
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Parent Institution

Most of the journals in Croatia adopted the open access (OA) model and their content is freely accessible and available for reuse without restrictions except that attribution be given to the author(s) and journal. There are 444 Croatian scholarly, professional, popular and trade OA journals available in the national repository of OA journals Hrcak, and 217 of them use peer review process as the primary quality assurance system. The goal of our study was to investigate the peer review process used by the Croatian OA journals and the editors’ attitude towards open peer review.An online survey was sent to the Hrcak journal editors with 39 questions grouped in: journal general information, a number of submitted/rejected/accepted manuscripts and timeliness of publishing, peer review process characteristics, instructions for peer reviewers and open peer review. Responses were obtained from 152 editors (141 complete and 11 partial). All journals employ peer review process except one. The data were collected from February to July 2017.The majority of journals come from the humanities (n=50, 33%) and social sciences (n=37, 24%). Less represented are journals from the field of biomedicine (n=22, 14%), technical sciences (n=16, 11%), natural sciences (n=12, 8%), biotechnical sciences (n=10, 7%) and interdisciplinary journals (n=3, 2%). Average journal submission is 54 manuscripts per year, but there are big differences among journals: maximum submission is 550 manuscripts, and minimum just five. In average journal publishes 23 papers after the reviewers’ and editors’ acceptance. In average it takes 16 days for sending the manuscript to the reviewer, 49 days for all the reviewers to send the journal a detailed report on the manuscript, 14 days to the editors’ decision, and another 60 days for the paper to be published.External peer review process where reviewers are not members of the editorial board or employees of the journal’s parent institution was used by 86 journals (60%). Other journals use external peer review process where reviewers are not members of the editorial board but could be employees of the journal’s parent institution (n=40, 28%), and editorial peer review. Remaining 10% journals combine previous three types of the peer review. Only 20% journals use exclusively reviewers from abroad, 44% are combining international and national reviewers, and 36% journals use only reviewers from Croatia.The majority of journals provide two reviews for each manuscript, and the process is double blind. Detailed instructions for peer reviewers are provided by less than half of the journals (n=57, 40%), but ethical issues like plagiarism, conflict of interest, confidentiality etc., are neglected. Usually, a reviewer is not informed of the final decision upon the manuscript, and reviews are not shared among reviewers.Somehow surprising was the opinion of the majority of the editors that reviewers must get credit for their efforts (n=121, 85%). On the other hand, editors are not familiar with the concept of open peer review, which can be easily used for that purpose. Some editors believe that open peer review is related to the identity disclosure: both authors’ and reviewers’ (n=35, 25%), reviewers’ (n=27, 19%), and authors’ identity (n=14, 10%). For many editors open peer review implies publicly available reviews (n=65, 36%) and authors’ responses (n=46, 33%). Open peer review is an unknown concept for some editors (n=32, 23%).In spite of all criticism traditional peer review is predominant in Croatian OA journals. Our findings show that traditional peer review is still the preferred review mechanism for the majority of journals in the study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document