scholarly journals A new start

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriano Sofo
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Plant Biology ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Research Fields ◽  
Rapid Exchange ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Final Acceptance ◽  
Selection Of

<p>Dear editors, scientists and readers, <br />I accepted the role of Editor-in-Chief of the <em>International Journal of Plant Biology</em> with responsibility and enthusiasm. I think that open access journals as ours are the future for scientific publishing and are important for promoting a rapid exchange of research results, experience and ideas among professionals. First of all, I would like to thank the Publications Committee of PAGEPress for my selection. Of course I am aware of the fact that as Editor-in-Chief I will have specific tasks, such as the evaluation and final acceptance of manuscripts, the relationships with the other editors, the efficiency of the whole review process, the choice of the editors more relevant to the topics covered in the Journal. I will try to do it in the best possible way. <br />I will try to focus my attention on the most exciting and innovative research fields. My desire would be to raise the Journal not only for its scientific impact but also in terms of its spread within the scientific community. For this scope, I will immediately try to advertise the Journal using all available channels, especially at international level. The members of the editorial board, soon available on the website, will have strong experience abroad and consolidated international contacts. I feel confident that the contribution of many authors working in the various fields of plant biology will help us achieve good results. I hope to work with all of you on this exciting project!</p><p><em>Adriano Sofo</em></p>

scholarly journals 2014 -2016 Editorial Board and Note from the Editors

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eriny Hanna ◽  
Jelena Belenzada
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Undergraduate Research ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Research Journal ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Selection For ◽  
Vanderbilt University ◽  
Final Selection ◽  
Selection Of

A Note from the Editors We are delighted to welcome you to Volume 10 of the Vanderbilt Undergraduate Research Journal (VURJ), a selection of some of the finest research conducted within the undergraduate community at Vanderbilt University. In the decade since its inception, VURJ has featured over 100 articles in the sciences, humanities, and social sciences. After a brief hiatus in 2014, VURJ came back stronger than ever, boasting our most diverse and selective issue yet. With 73 submissions from students at all four of Vanderbilt’s undergraduate schools, 19 outstanding articles were selected for publication. All submitted manuscripts underwent a rigorous multi-step review process, including two to three rounds of readings by trained peer reviewers, and final selection for publication by VURJ’s team of associate editors. In this issue, you will learn about and explore a diverse selection of topics from arts in trauma therapy to the resurrection of extinct species, an exciting assortment that provides a small glimpse into Vanderbilt’s thriving and dynamic academic community. We encourage you to engage further with this community by contributing some of your own work to our next issue, or by applying to join our team of editors. Happy reading and best wishes, Jelena Belenzada Editor in Chief, 2014-2015 Eriny Hanna Editor at Large, 2014-2015

scholarly journals RESEARCH ON AGING: THE INTERNATIONAL VIEW FROM THE EDITORS' DESKS

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S195-S195
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Burr ◽  
Kyungmin Kim ◽  
Sae Hwang Han
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Social Work ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Aging Studies ◽  
Acceptance Rates ◽  
International View

Abstract We review the scope, content, and focus of the peer-reviewed journal, Research on Aging (SAGE), publishing its 41st volume this year. We will discuss how scholarship produced from researchers around the globe has changed over the years. Data on submissions, acceptance rates, and the important role of an international editorial board will be presented. The review process will be described, along with suggestions on how to increase chances of success when submitting original research. Although Research on Aging is sometimes considered to focus primarily on social gerontology, the scope in recent years has widened considerably, with manuscripts in aging studies published from such fields as economics, psychology, demography, public health, and public policy, as well as from sociology, and social work, among others. One of several special issues forthcoming in the journal will be described to demonstrate the possibilities for international impact.

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.

Decommissioning – a path forward for Australia

2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Stuart J. Barrymore ◽  
Jane Ballard
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Australian Government ◽  
Discussion Paper ◽  
Adequate Funding ◽  
Sea Bed ◽  
Fit For Purpose ◽  
Almost All ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Selection Of

Australia has embarked on a review of its decommissioning law and practice with a comprehensive discussion paper being issued by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. Initial stakeholder comments and submissions have been made, and the Department is now considering those submissions with a view to issuing recommendations to the Minister. The discussion paper ultimately proposes that new laws will be implemented to ensure that Australia has a 21st century fit-for-purpose decommissioning regime to apply to its offshore petroleum installations. After an overview of the review process and the selected issues that the Department regards of significance, this article considers a selection of the issues that emerge. It is evident that diverse views exist on almost all topics, and it will not be an easy task to find a balance that both meets the goals and aspirations of industry and community sectors. This challenge is compounded by the scale of decommissioning operations and the cost that will be incurred to remediate wells and remove associated facilities. The balance sought is one that does not stifle industry’s capacity to further invest nor impose onerous or uncompetitive imposts or controls, but also assures that adequate funding is available to carry out decommissioning works. Everyone seemingly accepts that it is not the role of the Australian Government to remove the facilities and restore the sea bed. Globally, techniques that are being increasingly utilised to manage this risk involve the imposition of securities or other assurance and enhanced statutory liability mechanisms. These legal and commercial considerations are given particular focus in the article.

scholarly journals Research on Aging: The International View From the Editors’ Desks

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 360-361
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Burr ◽  
Changmin Peng ◽  
Kyungmin Kim
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Social Work ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Aging Studies ◽  
Acceptance Rates ◽  
International View

Abstract We review the scope, content, and focus of the peer-reviewed journal, Research on Aging (SAGE), publishing its 422nd volume this year. We will discuss how scholarship produced from researchers around the globe has changed over the years. Data on submissions, acceptance rates, and the important role of an international editorial board will be presented. The review process will be described, along with suggestions on how to increase chances of success when submitting original research. Although Research on Aging is sometimes considered to focus primarily on social gerontology, the scope in recent years has widened considerably, with manuscripts in aging studies published from such fields as economics, psychology, demography, public health, and public policy, as well as from sociology, and social work, among others. One of several special issues forthcoming in the journal will be described to demonstrate the possibilities for international impact.

scholarly journals 20 YEARS OF ANNALS OF KEMU (1995 � 2015)

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 210
Author(s):  
Prof Dr. Syed Muhammad Awais
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Editorial Policy ◽  
Manuscript Submission ◽  
Total Income ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Publication Cost ◽  
Editorial Review ◽  
The Cost

The Annals of KEMU was first published in 1995, and Prof. Abdul Majeed Ch. was the first editor. I was appointed as editor on 15th May 2007, the responsibility which I will be completing on my retirement on 9th December, 2015. A brief report of Annals of KEMU from 15-05-2007 to 09-12-2015 is stated below for kind information of the authors, reviewers and readers of the Annals. The title of Annals of KEMC was changed to Annals of KEMU, new editorial board was constituted and editorial policy was made and approved on 14th June 2007. According to editorial policy 2007, the editorial process was divided into six (6) steps; 1-Manuscript Submission, 2-Plagiarism Check with Turnitun, 3-review of manuscript by two reviewers, 4-acceptance/rewriting/rejection, 5-publication and 6-circulation. As a result of high quality, the Annals was recognized by PMDC in 2009. The HEC recognized Annals first in category Z and later on raised the category to Y and in July 2015 to highest category X. Annals of KEMU has been indexed with; 1-Pak MediNet (1996), 2-EMRO Indexus of WHO (1997), 3-Directory of Open Access Journals-DOAJ (2007), 4-ICJME Database(2010), 5-PKP Harvester Database, 6-Open J Gate Database (2010), 7-Google Scholar. From June 2007 to November 2015, thirty five (35) issues of Annals of KEMU were published. Five hundred and sixty (560) manuscript were received, four hundred and thirty eight (38) manuscripts were accepted and published, forty three (43) were rejected, and four (04) manuscripts were withdrawn by authors. Until December 2015, seventy five (75) manuscripts are in editorial review process. Total income of the Annals from June 2007 to December 2015 was Rs. 12,52,280/- (Grant from HEC Rs. 6,12,280, collection from authors at rate of Rs. 1,000 for processing each manuscript Rs. 5,60,000 and from advertisements Rs. 80,000. During this period the expenditures of Annals have been Rs. 12,80,215 (publication cost Rs. 11,36,215 and correspondence and circulation Rs 1,44,000). In this way the cost to KEMU treasury has been Rs. 27,935/-. The credit for the achievements of; maintaining good quality (plagiarism below 19% and approval by two reviewers of same specialty), achieving PMDC recognition and highest HEC rank, having Annals indexed with 7 databases and just cost of Rs. 27, 935 to KEMU treasury for publishing of 35 Issues goes to our able editorial board, authors, reviewers and the staff. I take this opportunity to thank all of them, espe-cially the editorial secretaries, Mr. Asim Saeed and Mr. Muhammad Afzal (Assistant Annals of KEMU), who have worked very hard.

scholarly journals Editorial 2019: Continuation of Promotion and New Efforts

2019 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Tea Tomljanović ◽  
Daniel Matulić
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Professional Journal ◽  
Fisheries Science ◽  
Open Access Journals

Abstract Croat J Fish continues in its effort to stay an important scientific and professional journal in the region. In this year, the Journal was advanced by new Editorial Board members while cooperation with SCIENDO publishers has been extended until the end of 2020. We hope and expect 2019 to be yet another significant year in fisheries science and we look forward to sharing it with you. The Editorial also provides information on the latest news on Open Access Journals Initiative, the Journal Scopus CiteScore metrics, as well as the articles published in Croat J Fish in 2018, with a list of reviewers who participated in the review process.

scholarly journals A Critical Appraisal of Predatory Journals in Pathology

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaman M AlAhmad ◽  
Ibrahim Abdelhafez ◽  
Farhan S Cyprian ◽  
Faruk Skenderi ◽  
Saghir Akhtar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Open Access Journals

Predatory or pseudo journals have recently come into focus due to their massive internet expansion and extensive spam email soliciting. Recent studies explored this urging problem in several biomedical disciplines. In the present study, we identified 69 potential predatory (pseudo) pathology journals that were contrasted to 89 legitimate pathology journals obtained from the major bibliographic databases. All potential predatory journals in pathology shared at least one of the features proposed by previous studies (e.g. a poor web-site integrity, submissions via email, unclear or ambiguous peer-review process, missing names of the editorial board members, missing or pending the journal ISSN). Twenty-one (30%) of the potential predatory pathology journals had misleading titles mimicking those of legitimate journals. Only one of the identified journals was listed in the Directory of Open Access journals whereas none (0%) was indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE or Web of Science, listed in the Committee on Publication Ethics nor have they had a legitimate impact factor in the Journal Citation Reports.

scholarly journals How Many Papers Should Scientists Be Reviewing? An Analysis Using Verified Peer Review Reports

Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
Vincent Raoult
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Research Fields ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Minimum Number ◽  
Review Reports

The current peer review system is under stress from ever increasing numbers of publications, the proliferation of open-access journals and an apparent difficulty in obtaining high-quality reviews in due time. At its core, this issue may be caused by scientists insufficiently prioritising reviewing. Perhaps this low prioritisation is due to a lack of understanding on how many reviews need to be conducted by researchers to balance the peer review process. I obtained verified peer review data from 142 journals across 12 research fields, for a total of over 300,000 reviews and over 100,000 publications, to determine an estimate of the numbers of reviews required per publication per field. I then used this value in relation to the mean numbers of authors per publication per field to highlight a ‘review ratio’: the expected minimum number of publications an author in their field should review to balance their input (publications) into the peer review process. On average, 3.49 ± 1.45 (SD) reviews were required for each scientific publication, and the estimated review ratio across all fields was 0.74 ± 0.46 (SD) reviews per paper published per author. Since these are conservative estimates, I recommend scientists aim to conduct at least one review per publication they produce. This should ensure that the peer review system continues to function as intended.

Clinical Science in the 1990s

1990 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
M. J. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Molecular Level ◽  
Short Interval ◽  
Clinical Science ◽  
Molecular Medicine ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Real Progress ◽  
General Journal

From this issue, Clinical Science will increase its page numbers from an average of 112 to 128 per monthly issue. This welcome change — equivalent to at least two manuscripts — has been ‘forced’ on us by the increasing pressure on space; this has led to an undesirable increase in the delay between acceptance and publication, and to a fall in the proportion of submitted manuscripts we have been able to accept. The change in page numbers will instead permit us now to return to our exceptionally short interval between acceptance and publication of 3–4 months; and at the same time we shall be able not only to accept (as now) those papers requiring little or no revision, but also to offer hope to some of those papers which have raised our interest but come to grief in review because of a major but remediable problem. Our view, doubtless unoriginal, has been that the review process, which is unusually thorough for Clinical Science, involving a specialist editor and two external referees, is most constructive when it helps the evolution of a good paper from an interesting piece of research. Traditionally, the papers in Clinical Science have represented some areas of research more than others. However, this has reflected entirely the pattern of papers submitted to us, rather than any selective interest of the Editorial Board, which numbers up to 35 scientists covering most areas of medical research. Arguably, after the explosion during the last decade of specialist journals, the general journal can look forward to a renaissance in the 1990s, as scientists in apparently different specialities discover that they are interested in the same substances, asking similar questions and developing techniques of mutual benefit to answer these questions. This situation arises from the trend, even among clinical scientists, to recognize the power of research based at the cellular and molecular level to achieve real progress, and at this level the concept of organ-based specialism breaks down. It is perhaps ironic that this journal, for a short while at the end of the 1970s, adopted — and then discarded — the name of Clinical Science and Molecular Medicine, since this title perfectly represents the direction in which clinical science, and therefore Clinical Science, is now progressing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document