scholarly journals Scopes and Peer Review Criteria of the Seven Article Types

2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 103-106
Author(s):  
Satoshi MURAKI
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Criteria

scholarly journals Data journals: types of peer review, review criteria, and editorial committee members’ positions

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-135
Author(s):  
Sunkyung Seo ◽  
Jihyun Kim
Keyword(s):  
Data Quality ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Editorial Committee ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Current State ◽  
Metadata Quality ◽  
Data Production ◽  
Open Review ◽  
Review Criteria

Purpose: This study analyzed the peer review systems, criteria, and editorial committee structures of data journals, aiming to determine the current state of data peer review and to offer suggestions.Methods: We analyzed peer review systems and criteria for peer review in nine data journals indexed by Web of Science, as well as the positions of the editorial committee members of the journals. Each data journal’s website was initially surveyed, and the editors-in-chief were queried via email about any information not found on the websites. The peer review criteria of the journals were analyzed in terms of data quality, metadata quality, and general quality.Results: Seven of the nine data journals adopted single-blind and open review peer review methods. The remaining two implemented modified models, such as interactive and community review. In the peer review criteria, there was a shared emphasis on the appropriateness of data production methodology and detailed descriptions. The editorial committees of the journals tended to have subject editors or subject advisory boards, while a few journals included positions with the responsibility of evaluating the technical quality of data.Conclusion: Creating a community of subject experts and securing various editorial positions for peer review are necessary for data journals to achieve data quality assurance and to promote reuse. New practices will emerge in terms of data peer review models, criteria, and editorial positions, and further research needs to be conducted.

scholarly journals Criteria for Peer Reviewing the Original Articles Submitted to a Biomedical Journal: Intellectual Honesty is the Best Policy.

2004 ◽  
Vol 43 (152) ◽  
pp. 103-110
Author(s):  
Bishnu Hari Paudel
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Quality Review ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Biomedical Publication ◽  
Timely Review ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Biomedical Publications ◽  
Review Criteria

Peer review - a process of assessing the quality of manuscripts submitted to a journal – is an establishednorm in biomedical publications. It is viewed as an extension of scientific process. The peer-reviewed researcharticles are considered trustworthy because they are believed to be unbiased and independent. The processof reviewing is a privilege and prestige. It is highly responsible, intellectually honest, and difficult job.Being expert in certain area of biomedical science is a prerequisite for reviewers. Young peer reviewerstrained in epidemiology or statistics produce high-quality review. The International Congresses on PeerReview in Biomedical Publication have shown many unresolved issues related to preparation or handling ofmanuscripts by a journal. Therefore, it is vital to identify authentic peer reviewers to ensure qualitypublication, thus, a set of peer review criteria is proposed for peer reviewing original articles. It is useful inquantifying (scoring) the manuscript quality. The proposed scoring system yields three categories ofmanuscripts: the first category is considered acceptable for publication after minor modification by editorialboard and/or reviewers, the second – requires rewriting and resubmission, and the third – rejected. Thesecriteria are preliminary guidelines, and require timely review. They are expected to sensitise peer reviewers,editors, contributors, and readers to move towards greater honesty and responsibility while working withmanuscripts. In summary, if the criteria are used they will facilitate editorial management of manuscripts,render more justice to authors and biomedical science, and improve publication quality.Key Words: Biomedical publication, peer review, peer review criteria, scoring of manuscripts, categories of manuscripts, journal of Nepal Medical Association.

Medicare Peer Review Organization Preprocedure Review Criteria

JAMA ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 265 (10) ◽  
pp. 1265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirley E. Kellie
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Criteria

THE CRITICAL ROLE OF REVIEW CRITERIA IN INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 127-133
Author(s):  
A. Alan Moghissi ◽  
Dennis McBride ◽  
Lauren Amangero ◽  
Matthew Amin ◽  
Daliha Aqbal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Review Criteria

scholarly journals Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sven E. Hug ◽  
Mirjam Aeschbach
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Evaluation Criterion ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Review Criteria ◽  
Academic Relevance

Criteria are an essential component of any procedure for assessing merit. Yet, little is known about the criteria peers use to assess grant applications. In this systematic review we therefore identify and synthesize studies that examine grant peer review criteria in an empirical and inductive manner. To facilitate the synthesis, we introduce a framework that classifies what is generally referred to as 'criterion' into an evaluated entity (i.e. the object of evaluation) and an evaluation criterion (i.e. the dimension along which an entity is evaluated). In total, the synthesis includes 12 studies on grant peer review criteria. Two-thirds of these studies examine criteria in the medical and health sciences, while studies in other fields are scarce. Few studies compare criteria across different fields, and none focus on criteria for interdisciplinary research. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of the 12 studies and thereby identified 15 evaluation criteria and 30 evaluated entities as well as the relations between them. Based on a network analysis, we determined the following main relations between the identified evaluation criteria and evaluated entities. The aims and outcomes of a proposed project are assessed in terms of the evaluation criteria originality, academic relevance, and extra-academic relevance. The proposed research process is evaluated both on the content level (quality, appropriateness, rigor, coherence/justification) as well as on the level of description (clarity, completeness). The resources needed to implement the research process are evaluated in terms of the evaluation criterion feasibility. Lastly, the person and personality of the applicant are assessed from a ‘psychological’ (motivation, traits) and a ‘sociological’ (diversity) perspective. Furthermore, we find that some of the criteria peers use to evaluate grant applications do not conform to the fairness doctrine and the ideal of impartiality. Grant peer review could therefore be considered unfair and biased. Our findings suggest that future studies on criteria in grant peer review should focus on the applicant, include data from non-Western countries, and examine fields other than the medical and health sciences.

scholarly journals “Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals

2018 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Spezi ◽  
Simon Wakeling ◽  
Stephen Pinfield ◽  
Jenny Fry ◽  
Claire Creaser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Editorial Decisions ◽  
Review Criteria ◽  
Insight Into

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to better understand the theory and practice of peer review in open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs typically operate a “soundness-only” review policy aiming to evaluate only the rigour of an article, not the novelty or significance of the research or its relevance to a particular community, with these elements being left for “the community to decide” post-publication. Design/methodology/approach The paper reports the results of interviews with 31 senior publishers and editors representing 16 different organisations, including 10 that publish an OAMJ. Thematic analysis was carried out on the data and an analytical model developed to explicate their significance. Findings Findings suggest that in reality criteria beyond technical or scientific soundness can and do influence editorial decisions. Deviations from the original OAMJ model are both publisher supported (in the form of requirements for an article to be “worthy” of publication) and practice driven (in the form of some reviewers and editors applying traditional peer review criteria to OAMJ submissions). Also publishers believe post-publication evaluation of novelty, significance and relevance remains problematic. Originality/value The study is based on unprecedented access to senior publishers and editors, allowing insight into their strategic and operational priorities. The paper is the first to report in-depth qualitative data relating specifically to soundness-only peer review for OAMJs, shedding new light on the OAMJ phenomenon and helping inform discussion on its future role in scholarly communication. The paper proposes a new model for understanding the OAMJ approach to quality assurance, and how it is different from traditional peer review.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2115 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Group ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Review Criteria

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: www.riact.co.in • Number of submissions received: 205 • Number of submissions sent for review: 123 • Number of submissions accepted:52 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100):25.36 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved:72 • Any additional info on review process: All papers had undergone plagiarism check and double-blind review by two reviewers. Based on the reviewer comments, revised manuscript were submitted by authors for final publication. Review criteria: 1. Technical Criteria (5 marks) 2. Plagiarism (5 marks) 3. Quality Criteria (5 marks) 4. Presentation Criteria (5 marks) 5. Based on reviewer and editor comments the authors are instructed to revise the accepted papers and instructed to submit the revised paper for JPCS. • Contact person for queries: Dr. AROCKIA SELVAKUMAR AROCKIA DOSS CONVENOR – RIACT 2021 SENIOR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DESIGN AND AUTOMATION RESEARCH GROUP SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING (SMEC) VIT CHENNAI, VANDALUR – KELAMBAKKAM ROAD MELAKOTTAIYUR, CHENNAI - 600 127. Mobile: 9962681933 Email: [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2022 ◽  
Vol 2149 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Review Criteria ◽  
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 published the information you provide as part of your proceedings. 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 (please describe) Single-anonymous: authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, reviewers’ identities are hidden from authors • Conference submission management system: Via email messages between editor and authors and editor and reviewers. • Number of submissions received: 18 • Number of submissions sent for review: 18 • Number of submissions accepted:18 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100):100 • Average number of reviews per paper: 1.11 • Total number of reviewers involved:20 • Any additional info on review process: The following review criteria were suggested: • Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined? • Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions? • Is the overall presentation well structured and clear? • Is the description of experiments and calculations sufficiently complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)? • Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used? • Are the number and quality of references appropriate? • Contact person for queries: Name : Julian Gröbner Affiliation: Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center (PMOD/WRC), Davos Dorf, Switzerland. Email :[email protected]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document