scholarly journals Ewolucyjna transformacja czasopisma. Część 4

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 5-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Kokowski ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
History Of ◽  
Peer Review Procedure

The article presents the fourth phase of the development of the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum (previous name Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU / Proceedings of the PAU Commission on the History of Science). The sections of the journal were modified, as well as the peer review procedure and the bibliographic style. There has also been an increase in the number of foreign authors and reviewers of the journal.

scholarly journals Evolutionary transformation of the journal. Part 4

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 11-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Kokowski ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
History Of ◽  
Peer Review Procedure

The article presents the fourth phase of the development of the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum (previous name Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU / Proceedings of the PAU Commission on the History of Science). The sections of the journal were modified, as well as the peer review procedure and the bibliographic style. There has also been an increase in the number of foreign authors and reviewers of the journal.

The peer review procedure: some thoughts on the analysis and dissemination of good practices in the framework of the European Employment Strategy

2006 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florence Lefresne
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
Mutual Learning ◽  
Community Model ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
Peer Review Procedure

The purpose of the peer review programme - created in 1999, and in 2005 incorporated into the mutual learning programme of the European Employment Strategy - is to identify and evaluate good practices by Member States and to promote their transferability within the European Union. But is it possible to isolate a good practice and to transpose it? On the basis of specific examples this article draws attention to the numerous inconsistencies that emerge between the supposedly universal register of the EES and the great variety of national registers through which it is interpreted. These findings lead to an adjustment of the expectations placed in mutual learning. The article goes on to show that the identification of good practices reflects, in considerable measure, a wish on the part of the Member States to make their national employment policies appear legitimate, implicitly raising, at the same time, some questions about the actual feasibility of a Community model.

scholarly journals Volume 9, Issue 2, Formation

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hayder A. L. Mossa ◽  
◽  
Taif Alawsi ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Ethical Code ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Peer Review Procedure

The editors of the Iraqi Journal of Embryos and Infertility Researches (IJEIR) are thankful to the huge efforts made by the reviewers in peer- reviewing the submitted manuscripts. Thanks to their efforts the second issue of the 9th volume is now available online with open access to the articles content. We are looking forward in inclusion in relevant indexing in the near future. We would like to acknowledge the reviewers for their contribution, and we wish them the greatest success. We ensured the anonymity of both reviewers and authors and followed a double-blind peer-review procedure. Our published articles are under the creative common attribution license. We strictly followed the COPE ethical code in the published studies. Our articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

scholarly journals Volume 10, Issue 2, Formation

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e1-e15
Author(s):  
Taif Alawsi ◽  
Ula Al-Kawaz
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Online System ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Peer Review Procedure

In editors of the Iraqi Journal of Embryos and Infertility Researches (IJEIR) are thankful to the huge efforts made by the reviewers in peer reviewing the submitted manuscripts. Thanks to their efforts the second issue of the 10th volume is now available online with open access to the articles content. We are looking forward in inclusion in relevant indexing in the near future. We would like to acknowledge the reviewers for their contribution, and we wish them the greatest success. We ensured the anonymity of both reviewers and authors and followed a double-blind peer-review procedure. We strictly followed the COPE ethical code in the published studies. As of now, the IJEIR is published in new website https://ijeir.net/index.php/ijeir supported by the Open Journal Systems (OJS), therefore all the activities were strictly by the online system. Journal reviewers were given the proper credit via Publons (an online platform that promotes the peer review process). Currently, IJEIR is indexed in Google Scholar, Science gate, Crossref, Iraqi academic journals, Publons, Dimensions, LOCKSS, and CLOCKSS. Our articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License and the rights are with the authors which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0  

scholarly journals Volume 9, Issue 1, Formation

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e1-e10
Author(s):  
Taif Alawsi ◽  
Hayder A. L. Mossa
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Ethical Code ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Peer Review Procedure

The editors of the Iraqi Journal of Embryos and Infertility Researches (IJEIR) are thankful to the huge efforts made by the reviewers in peerreviewing the submitted manuscripts. Thanks to their efforts the first issue of the 9th volume is now available online with open access to the articles content. We are looking forward in inclusion in relevant indexing in the near future. We would like to acknowledge the reviewers for their contribution, and we wish them the greatest success. We ensured the anonymity of both reviewers and authors and followed a double-blind peer-review procedure. Our published articles are under the creative common attribution license. We strictly followed the COPE ethical code in the published studies. Our articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Volume 10, Issue 1, Formation

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e1-e10
Author(s):  
Taif Alawsi ◽  
Ula M. R. Al-Kawaz ◽  
Hayder A. L. Mossa
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Ethical Code ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Peer Review Procedure

The editors of the Iraqi Journal of Embryos and Infertility Researches (IJEIR) are thankful to the huge efforts made by the reviewers in peerreviewing the submitted manuscripts. Thanks to their efforts the first issue of the 9th volume is now available online with open access to the articles content. We are looking forward in inclusion in relevant indexing in the near future. We would like to acknowledge the reviewers for their contribution, and we wish them the greatest success. We ensured the anonymity of both reviewers and authors and followed a double-blind peer-review procedure. Our published articles are under the creative common attribution license. We strictly followed the COPE ethical code in the published studies. Our articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Qualitätsmanagement: Kollegiales Peer-Review-Verfahren in der Intensivmedizin

2018 ◽  
Vol 143 (21) ◽  
pp. 1532-1540
Author(s):  
Elke Muhl
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Quality Management ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Quality Indicators ◽  
The Third ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
Peer Review Procedure

AbstractWe report on the German Peer Review procedure for the quality management of Intensive Care Wards. The third up-date of the quality-indicators was published in 2017. The Peer Review Procedure, its organization, the development of quality indicators in Germany and their benefit for the patients is introduced.

scholarly journals Why Academics Choose to Publish in a Mega-Journal

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 348
Author(s):  
Jovan Shopovski ◽  
Dejan Marolov
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
Peer Review Procedure ◽  
Significant Factors

With their broad scope, high publishing volume, a peer review process based on the scientific soundness of the content, and an open access model, mega journals have become an important part of scholarly publishing.The main aim of this paper is to determine the most important factor that influenced researchers’ decisions to submit their academic work to these type of journal. To this end, an online survey has been disseminated from November 2016 to August 2017, targeting the corresponding authors of the European Scientific Journal, ESJ. Data from 413 corresponding authors was collected.The focus was mainly on how they discover the journal and what led them to submit a paper to the journal. However, questions concerning their satisfaction with the peer review procedure were also part of the survey.The results have shown that a recommendation of a colleague is not only the main channel through which authors found out about the journal, but is also the major reason they decided to submit their paper to a mega-journal. Furthermore, the quality of the editorial board of the journal, the strong portfolio of papers and the open access concept are also significant factors in encouraging submission to a mega-journal. A majority of the respondents are satisfied with the communication and peer review procedure of the mega-journal, which might encourage new submissions in the future.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2086 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Program Committee ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Conference Series ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
Peer Review Procedure

• Type of peer review: closed, collective. At the first stage, candidates sent their short abstracts when registering on the conference website. Totally, 483 candidates have been registered. The Program Committee pre-selected the submitted abstracts on the basis of the peer review procedure with the involvement of external experts. 286 selected participants were admitted to the conference. Upon the end of the conference, the participants sent in extended versions of their works in the format required for publication in the Journal of Physics: Conference Series. The program committee finally selected 221 articles for publication in the Journal of Physics: Conference Series. • Conference submission management system: Articles were downloaded through the conference website. • Number of submissions received: 483 • Number of submissions sent for review: 483 • Number of submissions accepted: 221 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 46 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 10 • Contact person for queries: Prof. Alexey E. Zhukov, HSE – St Petersburg, 3(1) Kantemirovskaya str, St Petersburg, 194100, Russia [email protected]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document