scholarly journals Meet the Journal’s Editorial Review Board Members

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Nancy Solomon ◽  

I am honored to take on the role as Editor-in-Chief (EIC) of the International Journal of Orofacial Myology and Myofunctional Therapy (IJOM).To prepare for my role as EIC, I set two major goals to address today’s quickly evolving publication standards and the expansion and growth of the discipline of orofacial myofunctional disorders. The first was to establish an on-line submission and review process and an on-line archive for all past articles. The second critical goal was to recruit and enlist an international group of highly respected scientists and doctoral-level practitioners who represent diverse topics related to orofacial myofunctional disorders and therapy to serve on the journal’s Editorial Review Board (ERB). I am proud to introduce this new slate of ERB members.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kay Wilhelm ◽  
Tonelle Handley ◽  
Catherine McHugh McHugh ◽  
David Lowenstein ◽  
Kristy Arrold

BACKGROUND The internet is increasingly seen as an important source of health information for consumers and their families. Accessing information related to their illness and treatment enables consumers to more confidently discuss their health and treatments with their doctors, but the abundance of readily available information also means can be confusing in terms of how reliable the information to enable consumers, families and clinicians to participate in the decision-making process of their care. OBJECTIVE The current study aimed to rate the quality of websites with psychosis-related information (using a validated instrument (DISCERN) and purpose-developed Psychosis Website Quality Checklist (PWQC) to assess quality over time and aid professionals in directing consumers to the best available information. METHODS Entering search terms ‘psychotic’, ‘psychosis’, ‘schizophrenia’, ‘delusion’, ‘hallucination’ into the search engine Google (www.google.com.au) provided 25 websites evaluated by DISCERN and PWQC at two time points, January-March 2014, and January-March 2018, by three diverse health professionals. RESULTS Only the six highest ranked achieved DISCERN scores indicating “good” quality. The overall mean scores of websites were 43.96 (SD=12.08) indicating “fair” quality. PWQC ratings were high on “availability and usability” but poor on “credibility,” “currency,” and “breadth and accuracy”, with no substantial improvement quality over time. Having an editorial/ review process (56% of websites) was significantly associated with higher quality scores on both scales. CONCLUSIONS The quality of available information was ‘fair’ and had not significantly improved over time. While higher-quality websites exist, there is no easy way to assess this on face value. Having a readily identifiable editorial/review process was one indicator of website quality. CLINICALTRIAL Not applicable


2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
GJAE Referees
Keyword(s):  

The academicians listed below have acted as referees since November 2015 for manuscripts in which the review process of which have been completed, as well as for those paper submissions which have been cancelled by the authors for some reason and for those that have been rejected. The editorial board members are grateful to all referees who have contributed to GJAE.Anca MitracheUni. of Architecture and Urbanism,RomaniaEmine Kıvanc OztugNear East University, CyprusFatos AdilogluBahcesehir University, TurkeyMehmet KaramanogluMiddlesex University, UKSiniša OpićZagreb University, CroatiaSeyda Eraslan TaspinarAtaturk University, TurkeyIncilay YurdakulHacettepe University, TurkeyInci SanAnkara University, Turkey


Author(s):  
GJCS Referre

<p>The academicians listed below have acted as referees since November 2015 for manuscripts in which the review process of which have been completed, as well as for those paper submissions which have been cancelled by the authors for some reason and for those that have been rejected. The editorial board members are grateful to all referees who have contributed to GJCS.</p><table width="509" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="230"><p>Fezile Özdamlı</p></td><td valign="top" width="278"><p>Near East University, Cyprus</p></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="230"><p>Adem Karahoca</p></td><td valign="top" width="278"><p>Bahcesehir University, Turkey
</p></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="230"><p>Carmen Pérez Sabater</p></td><td valign="top" width="278"><p>Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain</p></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="230"><p>Seren Başaran</p></td><td valign="top" width="278"><p>Near East University, Cyprus</p></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="230"><p>Huseyin Uzunboylu</p></td><td valign="top" width="278"><p>Near East University, Cyprus</p></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="230"><p>Mehmet Erdem</p></td><td valign="top" width="278"><p>University of Nevada, USA</p></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="230"><p>Tuncay Ergene</p></td><td valign="top" width="278"><p>Yaşar University, Turkey</p></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="230"><p>Iftikhar Ahmad</p></td><td valign="top" width="278"><p>King Saud University, Maleysia
</p></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="230"><p>Hafize Keser</p></td><td valign="top" width="278"><p>Ankara University Turkey</p></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="230"><p>Gabriela Grosseck</p></td><td valign="top" width="278"><p>University of the West Timisoara, Romania</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p>


1987 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ron Jenkins ◽  
Mark Holomany ◽  
Winnie Wong-Ng

AbstractThe International Centre for Diffraction Data has an ongoing program to ensure the quality of data in the Powder Diffraction File (PDF) reflects current requirements of the powder diffraction community. Annual updates are made available, comprising of around 1800 new patterns and 200 replacement patterns, but current statistics indicate that only about 20% of users of the PDF take advantage of these updates. This paper reviews changes which have been inplemented in the editorial review process to continuously monitor and review pattern quality and gives examples of better data which have resulted from these changes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Arun Kumar

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


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document