scholarly journals Introducing the 1st Issue of the Nicholai Studies

2021 ◽  
Vol I (1) ◽  
pp. 7-16
Author(s):  
Srećko Petrović
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Internal Review

With the first issue of the new international journal dedicated to the research of Bishop Nicholai Velimirovich’s legacy, the circumstances and the context in which he lived and created, and the issues of reception of his ideas and his contribution, we would like to say a word on the main editorial and publishing policies. We fully endorse academic rules on publishing and publication ethics. Our journal is published both in English and Serbian language; we apply the double-blind unbiased peer-review, including internal review by the Editorial Board and external reviewers, experts on the topic.

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 declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2061 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Technical Information ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Program Committee ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
State University ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
E Mail

Abstract All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Double-blind peer review • Review criteria: Consistency with the conference scope and JPCS fields of interests; Technical content; Presentation style and clarity; Academic value. Each position was assessed with the following scale: Unsatisfactory, To be Improved, Good Enough. All papers marked as unsatisfactory by two referees were declined, all other papers were either accepted as is or send for the revision. Editorial board is responsible for the final decision regarding the publishing of manuscripts. • Conference submission management system: submissions were received and handled via e-mail • Number of submissions received: 262 • Number of submissions sent for review: 181 • Number of submissions accepted: 153 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 60% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 29 • Any additional info on review process: three independent peers, one of whom invited from outside the committee were assigned to each paper. The editors supervised the review process. Contact person for queries: Igor Boychuk , co-chairman of the organizing committee, co-editor, associate professor of Admiral Ushakov State Maritime University, Novorossiysk, Russia. E-mail: [email protected]. Sergey Bakhmutov , co-chairman of the program committee, co-editor, vice executive office for research and development of Central Scientific Research Automobile and Automotive Engines Institute (FSUE “NAMI”), Moscow, Russia. E-mail: [email protected]. Artyom Butsanets , secretary of the editorial board, head of the department of intellectual property and technical information, Admiral Makarov State University of Maritime and Inland Shipping, Saint Petersburg, Russia, [email protected].

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration

2022 ◽  
Vol 964 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Ho Chi Minh City ◽  
Scientific Content ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
English Writing ◽  
University Of Technology ◽  
National University ◽  
Scientific Standards

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 reviewers accept or decline the manuscript based on the scope of the conference, the originality of idea, the scientific content of the work, and the English writing of the manuscript. The editorial board based on the recommendation of the reviewers, including Publishable without revision (No Revision), Publishable after a few revision (Minor Revision), Publishable only after correcting as recommended, HUGE Revision must be done (Major revision), and REJECT) to decide that the manuscript should be revised or rejected. Once rejected, there has not been any changed for resubmission. • Conference submission management system: https://conferences.hcmut.edu.vn/ICERES2021 • Number of submissions received: 127 (for the whole Conference), 70 (selected and invited for IOP submission). • Number of submissions sent for review: 70 • Number of submissions accepted: 33 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 47.1% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2.5 • Total number of reviewers involved: 71 (60 responded) • Any additional info on review process: None • Contact person for queries: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Vo Le Phu ([email protected]), Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HCMUT) – Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2052 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Applied Mathematics ◽  
Program Committee ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Plagiarism Detection ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
Peer Review Procedure

The present document contains details on the procedure for reviewing the materials of the third International Scientific and Practical Conference MATHEMATICAL MODELING, PROGRAMMING AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS 2021. • The type of peer review is double blind peer review. • All the submitted materials, timely received by the conference e-mail [email protected], were considered by the program organizing committee. The program committee identified the reviewers who received the authors’ articles through the conference email. Each article was submitted to two independent peer reviewers with a scientific degree who did not know the name of the author (or the names of authors) of the article being reviewed. All articles submitted for consideration have passed the peer review procedure in accordance with the standards of editorial ethics, with international practice of editing, reviewing, publishing and authorship of scientific publications and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics –COPE. Plagiarism, improper borrowing, attempts to circumvent plagiarism detection, verbatim copying and paraphrasing of one’s own work (self-plagiarism) without proper justification, copyright infringement is considered unacceptable practices. All articles that have passed the peer review procedure are original works that have not been previously published in other publications in their current or similar form; they have not been reviewed in other editions. Materials of low scientific level are not accepted for publication. • The number of applications received is 105, of which 59 were accepted for work, the acceptance rate (number of applications accepted / number of applications received X 100) was 56%. • Average number of reviews per paper - 1,6. • The total number of reviewers involved is 40 experts in this particular subject area. • Additional information on the process of consideration of materials: only applications, the authors of which had corrected the substantiated comments of the reviewers, were accepted; the articles that received a negative review from the reviewer were excluded from the conference materials. The conference materials submission control system is presented on the official conference website at https://www.novsu.ru/dept/515278/i.454744/?id=1759423. • For inquiries please contact Dr. Oxana Fikhtner, Head of Academic Publishing Development centre of NovSU ([email protected]).

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2124 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Civil Engineering ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Quality Of Data ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Engineering Sciences ◽  
Pdf Format

ADVANCED TRENDS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING (ATCE 2021) 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: Single-blind/Double-blind/Triple-blind/Open/Other (please describe): Double-blind. Papers must be submitted electronically via: https://scopus-conf.ru/en/advanced-trends-in-sivil-engineering/. All submissions must come in PDF format, conform to the Conference Publishing template, and not exceed 14 pages (including figures, appendices and references). We also welcome survey papers with an increased page limit of up to 15 pages. Together with papers authors also must submit the registration form. Every participant in the conference served by this site, “in any capacity,” must maintain a login and password. The same login must be used for all conferences. Follow the link to register a login, to check and update your personal information, or to retrieve your password. To comply with the General Data Protection Regulation, the first time when you login to a new account, you will be directed to the required opt-in consent form before you can use your account in any capacity for products and services offered through this site. All papers submitted to the conferences supported by this site need to be prepared as compliant PDF files and must be formatted according to the template. • Conference submission management system: the papers were submitted via conference website • Number of submissions received: 61 submissions received • Number of submissions sent for review: 54 submissions were sent for review • Number of submissions accepted: 28 submissions were accepted • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 45,9% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 40 • Any additional info on review process: All the papers submitted to the ADVANCED TRENDS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING (ATCE 2021) conferences pass the procedure of reviewing according to the order established by editorial board. All papers are reviewed three times by experts in relevant field. The reviewing process took 40 days. The revised papers were also checked by Editors. All accepted papers meet the following criteria: - Scientific merit and quality of data presented; - Relevance of study to the conference topics; - No plagiarism and autoplagiarism; - Adequate paper structure; - Good English. Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of life sciences, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Conference Editors choose readers for peer review. In the case of the manuscript relevance to the conference profile, established rules and requirements, it is accepted by the editorial board and is sent for the reviewing. Otherwise the article is rejected without further reviewing. Reviewers prepare reviews of articles on a voluntary basis. Reviewers should submit their reviews in a scanned form. The reviewer makes a conclusion about the possibility of publishing an article: • “recommended for publication” • “recommended taking into account the correction of the comments made by the reviewer” • “article must be sent for revision” • “not recommended for publication”. The articles are reviewed and accepted only after at least two positive reviews of three reviewers. After making a decision by the editorial board of the conference to admit the article for publication, the author is informed about it. • Contact person for queries: Name: Sergey Klyuev Affiliation: Candidate of Engineering Sciences (PhD), Associate Professor, Belgorod State Technological University named after V.G. Shukhov Email: [email protected]

scholarly journals Single-Blind and Double-Blind Peer Review: Effects on National Representation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Meghana Kalavar ◽  
Arjun Watane ◽  
David Wu ◽  
Jayanth Sridhar ◽  
Prithvi Mruthyunjaya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
National Representation ◽  
Single Blind

scholarly journals Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Wager ◽  
◽  
Sabine Kleinert
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
List Type ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Published Research

Abstract Background Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic. Methods These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication. Results The main recommendations are that research institutions should: develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers. Conclusions Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases.

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
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document