Spotted around the web: Autism knowledge in Russia, brain imaging peer review, neuro-advocacy

Spectrum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Adams
Keyword(s):  
Brain Imaging ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Autism Knowledge ◽  
The Web

How Technologies Can Localize Learners in Multicultural Space

2013 ◽  
pp. 103-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilbert Ahamer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Team Teaching ◽  
Development Cooperation ◽  
Technological Innovations ◽  
Global Studies ◽  
Global Learning ◽  
Umbrella Organisation ◽  
Innovative Curriculum ◽  
Web Platform ◽  
The Web

Technological innovations can be used in many ways to enhance the suitability of global learning. A newly developed online-supported curriculum “Global Studies” takes account of the necessities of interdisciplinary, intercultural and interparadigmatic learning. The history and genesis of such an innovative curriculum is embedded in a national umbrella organisation focusing on development studies. As the interdisciplinary core, a new lecture on the fundamentals of Global Studies has been implemented in 2010/11 that envisions team teaching and interdisciplinary perspectives. The web platform allows students to present their professional views and discuss them in a peer review. Dialogue and discourse are enhanced by repeated change of roles which is enriched by the broad international and intercultural backgrounds of the participating students. Cultures of understanding are generated and widened as a prerequisite for future careers in development cooperation, diplomacy and transnational organisations.

scholarly journals Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial

BMJ ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 341 (nov16 2) ◽  
pp. c5729-c5729 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. van Rooyen ◽  
T. Delamothe ◽  
S. J. W. Evans
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Web

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration Form Guidance

2021 ◽  
Vol 2081 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
State Technical ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Check System ◽  
E Mail ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Submission Date ◽  
The Web

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: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: To participate in the PIRT-2021 Conference, Participants had to register on the website http://www.pirt.info/?lang=eng#reg_form Abstracts and papers had to be sent to the PIRT-2021 Organizing Committee by e-mail: [email protected] All information about the format of abstracts and papers was on the web-site: http://www.pirt.info/?lang=eng • Number of submissions received: 61 • Number of submissions sent for review: 51 • Number of submissions accepted: 38 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 62,29 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved:12 • Any additional info on review process: Plagiarism check system: antiplagiat.ru Authors could resubmit the paper with the necessary revisions. • Contact person for queries: Name : Professor Vladimir Olegovich Gladyshev Affiliation: Head of the Faculty of Fundamental Sciences, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, 5, 2-nd Baumanskaya St., Moscow, 105005, Russian Federation Email : [email protected]

scholarly journals Technology and peer review: the open and participatory dimension

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 15-20
Author(s):  
Laura Fedeli
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Online Communities ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Academic Context ◽  
Prospective Author ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Web ◽  
Hybrid Forms ◽  
Manuscript Publication

Abstract Peer review is a consolidated procedure in the academic context and its process affects various range of research outputs from project funding applications to manuscript publication. Peer review can be developed through modalities that imply a different level of transparency in the relationship between anonymity of the author and the reviewer/s. With the development of social media and the growth of scientific online communities, new forms of peer review have acquired a recognised value, matching the need of the academy to rely on selected reviewers and the need of the prospective author to get a richer feedback from a variety of scholars through different means, open comments and/or discussion fora, and always accessible online. Hybrid forms of review, which can integrate a formal peer review with an open comment opportunity on the Web, proved successful for both improving the author’s draft and enhancing its chances of publication and for the reviewers who can use this valuable activity to enrich their reputation by collecting and showing their reviews as research output. In this framework, quality, transparency and reputation acquire new nuances in their connection with the process of research validation.

scholarly journals Unbundling Open Access dimensions: a conceptual discussion to reduce terminology inconsistencies

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Martín-Martín ◽  
Rodrigo Costas ◽  
Thed van Leeuwen ◽  
Emilio Delgado López-Cózar
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Conceptual Model ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Different Dimensions ◽  
Six Dimensions ◽  
Conceptual Discussion ◽  
Model Features ◽  
Specific Scenario ◽  
The Web

The current ways in which documents are made freely accessible in the Web no longer adhere to the models established Budapest/Bethesda/Berlin (BBB) definitions of Open Access (OA). Since those definitions were established, OA-related terminology has expanded, trying to keep up with all the variants of OA publishing that are out there. However, the inconsistent and arbitrary terminology that is being used to refer to these variants are complicating communication about OA-related issues. This study intends to initiate a discussion on this issue, by proposing a conceptual model of OA. Our model features six different dimensions (prestige, user rights, stability, immediacy, peer-review, and cost). Each dimension allows for a range of different options. We believe that by combining the options in these six dimensions, we can arrive at all the current variants of OA, while avoiding ambiguous and/or arbitrary terminology. This model can be an useful tool for funders and policy makers who need to decide exactly which aspects of OA are necessary for each specific scenario.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document