scholarly journals Preface: 4th International Workshop on Education Reform and Social Sciences (ERSS 2021)

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. I
Author(s):  
Yang Zhou ◽  
Pin Wang ◽  
Qi Xia
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Education Reform ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
International Workshop ◽  
Cultural Backgrounds ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Maximum Benefit ◽  
Conference Committee

This proceeding includes original and peer-reviewed research papers from the 4th International Workshop on Education Reform and Social Sciences (ERSS 2021), held from November 27-28, 2021 in Chengdu City, China.   The aim of ERSS 2021 is to provide a platform for educators, scholars, managers and graduate students from different cultural backgrounds to present and discuss research, developments and innovations in the fields of Education Reform & Social Science. It provides opportunities for the delegates to exchange new ideas and application experiences, to establish business or research relations and to find global partners for future collaboration.   ERSS 2021 received 147 manuscripts. And 53 submissions had been accepted by our reviewers. By submitting a paper to ERSS 2021, the authors agreed to the review process and understood that papers undergo a peer-review process. Manuscripts were reviewed by appropriately qualified experts in the field selected by the Conference Committee, who gave detailed comments and-if the submission was accepted the authors would submit a revised version that considered this feedback. All papers were reviewed using a double-blind review process: authors declared their names and affiliations in the manuscript for the reviewers to see, but reviewers did not know each other’s identities, nor did the authors receive information about who had reviewed their manuscript. The Committees of ERSS 2021 invested great efforts in reviewing the papers submitted to the conference and organizing the sessions to enable the participants to gain maximum benefit.   With our warmest regards,   Yang Zhou Pin Wang Qi Xia   Conference Organizing Committees

scholarly journals Preface: 2nd International Conference on Education and Educational Development (EED 2021)

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. I
Author(s):  
Yang Zhou ◽  
Benqing Wu ◽  
Pin Wang
Keyword(s):  
Education Reform ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Educational Development ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Cultural Development ◽  
Cultural Backgrounds ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
International Conference ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Conference Committee

It was a great honor to extend a warm invitation to the 2nd International Conference on Education and Educational Development (EED 2021). The conference was held from September 29-30, 2021 in Suzhou City, China. EED 2021 was co-organized by Hubei Xuemi Cultural Development Co., Ltd. and Research Center of Engineering and Science (RCES).   The aim of EED 2021 is to provide a platform for educators, scholars, managers and graduate students from different cultural backgrounds to present and discuss research, developments and innovations in the fields of Education Reform & Social Science. It provides opportunities for the delegates to exchange new ideas and application experiences, to establish business or research relations and to find global partners for future collaboration.   EED 2021 received 85 manuscripts. And 41 submissions had been accepted by our reviewers. By submitting a paper to EED 2021, the authors agreed to the review process and understood that papers undergo a peer-review process. Manuscripts were reviewed by appropriately qualified experts in the field selected by the Conference Committee, who gave detailed comments and-if the submission was accepted the authors would submit a revised version that considered this feedback. All papers were reviewed using a double-blind review process: authors declared their names and affiliations in the manuscript for the reviewers to see, but reviewers did not know each other’s identities, nor did the authors receive information about who had reviewed their manuscript. The Committees of EED 2021 invested great efforts in reviewing the papers submitted to the conference and organizing the sessions to enable the participants to gain maximum benefit.   Hopefully, all participants and other interested readers will benefit scientifically from the proceedings and also find it stimulating in the process.

scholarly journals Peer review blinding practices of highly ranked dental journals: analysis and discussion

BDJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Lower Odds ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Single Blind

AbstractObjectives To evaluate the type of peer review blinding used in highly ranked dental journals and to discuss the influence of the blinding approaches on the peer review process.Methods All 91 dental journals classified by impact factor (IF) had their websites scrutinised for the type of peer review blinding used for submissions. If the information was not reported, the journals were contacted to obtain the information. Linear and logistic regression were applied to evaluate the association between type of peer review blinding and IF.Results The selected journals reported the following peer review blinding approaches: single-blind (N = 36, 39.6%), double-blind (N = 46, 50.5%), transparent (N = 2, 2.2%) and open (N = 1, 1.1%). Information from six (6.6%) journals was not available. A linear regression analysis demonstrated that journals with lower IFs were associated with double-blind review (p = 0.001). A logistic regression suggested lower odds of association between single-blind peer review and journals with IFs below a threshold of 2 (odds ratio 0.157, confidence interval 0.059 to 0.417, p <0.001).Conclusions The majority of highly ranked dental journals had single- and double-blind peer review; journals with higher IFs presented single-blind peer review and those with lower IFs reported double-blind peer review.

scholarly journals Peer review analysis in the field of radiation oncology: results from a web-based survey of the Young DEGRO working group

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas Käsmann ◽  
◽  
Annemarie Schröder ◽  
Benjamin Frey ◽  
Daniel F. Fleischmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Scientific Content ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Scientific Background

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the reviewing behaviour in the German-speaking countries in order to provide recommendations to increase the attractiveness of reviewing activity in the field of radiation oncology. Methods In November 2019, a survey was conducted by the Young DEGRO working group (jDEGRO) using the online platform “eSurveyCreator”. The questionnaire consisted of 29 items examining a broad range of factors that influence reviewing motivation and performance. Results A total of 281 responses were received. Of these, 154 (55%) were completed and included in the evaluation. The most important factors for journal selection criteria and peer review performance in the field of radiation oncology are the scientific background of the manuscript (85%), reputation of the journal (59%) and a high impact factor (IF; 40%). Reasons for declining an invitation to review include the scientific background of the article (60%), assumed effort (55%) and a low IF (27%). A double-blind review process is preferred by 70% of respondents to a single-blind (16%) or an open review process (14%). If compensation was offered, 59% of participants would review articles more often. Only 12% of the participants have received compensation for their reviewing activities so far. As compensation for the effort of reviewing, 55% of the respondents would prefer free access to the journal’s articles, 45% a discount for their own manuscripts, 40% reduced congress fees and 39% compensation for expenses. Conclusion The scientific content of the manuscript, reputation of the journal and a high IF determine the attractiveness for peer reviewing in the field of radiation oncology. The majority of participants prefer a double-blind peer review process and would conduct more reviews if compensation was available. Free access to journal articles, discounts for publication costs or congress fees, or an expense allowance were identified to increase attractiveness of the review process.

scholarly journals Double-blind review in software engineering venues

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritz Beller ◽  
Alberto Bacchelli
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Software Engineering ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Hidden Biases ◽  
Benefits And Costs ◽  
Single Blind

The peer review process is central to the scientific method, the advancement and spread of research, as well as crucial for individual careers. However, the single-blind review mode currently used in most Software Engineering (SE) venues is susceptible to apparent and hidden biases, since reviewers know the identity of authors. We perform a study on the benefits and costs that are associated with introducing double- blind review in SE venues. We surveyed the SE community’s opinion and interviewed experts on double-blind reviewing. Our results indicate that the costs, mostly logistic challenges and side effects, outnumber its benefits and mostly regard difficulty for authors in blinding papers, for reviewers in understanding the increment with respect to previous work from the same authors, and for organizers to manage a complex transition. While the surveyed community largely consents on the costs of DBR, only less than one-third disagree with a switch to DBR for SE journals, all SE conferences, and, in particular, ICSE; the analysis of a survey with authors of submitted papers at ICSE 2016 run by the program chairs of that edition corroborates our result.

scholarly journals Double blind reviews in software engineering venues: Practicability, promises and perils

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritz Beller ◽  
Alberto Bacchelli
Keyword(s):  
Software Engineering ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Blind Reviews ◽  
Hidden Biases ◽  
Benefits And Costs ◽  
Single Blind

The peer review process is central to the scientific method, the advancement and spread of research as well as crucial for individual careers. However, the single blind review process currently used in most Software Engineering (SE) venues is susceptible towards apparent and hidden biases, since reviewers know the identity of authors. In this paper, we perform a study on the benefits and costs that are associated with introducing double-blind reviews in SE venues. We surveyed the SE community’s opinion, interviewed experts on double-blind reviewing, and estimated the likelihood of reviewers being able to guess the authors. Our results indicate that double-blind reviewing could be introduced in large SE conferences at lower-than-generally believed costs and that the majority of the SE community is in favor of introducing it.

scholarly journals Double-blind review in software engineering venues

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritz Beller ◽  
Alberto Bacchelli
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Software Engineering ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Hidden Biases ◽  
Benefits And Costs ◽  
Single Blind

The peer review process is central to the scientific method, the advancement and spread of research, as well as crucial for individual careers. However, the single-blind review mode currently used in most Software Engineering (SE) venues is susceptible to apparent and hidden biases, since reviewers know the identity of authors. We perform a study on the benefits and costs that are associated with introducing double- blind review in SE venues. We surveyed the SE community’s opinion and interviewed experts on double-blind reviewing. Our results indicate that the costs, mostly logistic challenges and side effects, outnumber its benefits and mostly regard difficulty for authors in blinding papers, for reviewers in understanding the increment with respect to previous work from the same authors, and for organizers to manage a complex transition. While the surveyed community largely consents on the costs of DBR, only less than one-third disagree with a switch to DBR for SE journals, all SE conferences, and, in particular, ICSE; the analysis of a survey with authors of submitted papers at ICSE 2016 run by the program chairs of that edition corroborates our result.

scholarly journals Reviewers’ Perceptions of the Peer Review Process in Journalism and Mass Communication

2017 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 278-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Curtin ◽  
John Russial ◽  
Alec Tefertiller
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Mass Communication ◽  
Career Advancement ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Helping Others ◽  
Intrinsic Motivations

This survey of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) scholars ( N = 547; response rate = 39.3%) examines perceptions of peer review, a study last undertaken in 1990. Respondents rated intrinsic motivations, such as helping others, more highly than extrinsic motivations, such as reviewing as a consideration for career advancement. Respondents believed they did a significantly better job as reviewers than did scholars who reviewed their work. More experienced reviewers saw their role as balanced between critic and coach, whereas less experienced reviewers saw their role as significantly more critical. Overall, respondents were ambivalent about the state of peer review, yet they resisted adopting approaches other than double-blind review.

scholarly journals Message from Editor

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Huseyin Uzunboylu
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Research Topics ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Related Field ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Scientific Platform

Dear Readers, It is a great honor for us to publish Volume 2, Issue 2 of International Journal of New Trends in Social Sciences (IJNTSS). International Journal of New Trends in Social Sciences (IJNTSS) is a multi-disciplinary, peer-reviewed, open access journal which provides a scientific platform for presenting and discussing new trends and issues in social sciences. It is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of social sciences. The journal publishes original researches, surveys and review articles of all the disciplines of social sciences, and it comprises comprehensive leading and current trends in social sciences. A total number of fifteen (15) manuscripts were submitted for this issue and each paper has been subjected to double-blind peer review process by the reviewers specialized in the related field. At the end of the review process, six (6) high quality research paper was selected and accepted for publication. Accordingly, aim of this issue is to give the researchers an opportunity to share the results of their academic studies. . There are different research topics discussed in the articles. We present many thanks to all the contributors who helped us to publish this issue. Best regards, Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu Editor – in Chief

scholarly journals Message from Editor

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. I
Author(s):  
Huseyin Uzunboylu
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Market Mechanism ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Related Field ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Scientific Platform

Dear Readers,It is a great honor for us to publish Volume 2, Issue 1 of International Journal of New Trends in SocialSciences (IJNTSS).International Journal of New Trends in Social Sciences (IJNTSS) is a multi-disciplinary, peer-reviewed,open access journal which provides a scientific platform for presenting and discussing new trends andissues in social sciences. It is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in allfields of social sciences. The journal publishes original researches, surveys and review articles of all thedisciplines of social sciences and it comprises comprehensive leading and current trends in socialsciences.A total number of five (13) manuscripts were submitted for this issue and each paper has beensubjected to double-blind peer review process by the reviewers specialized in the related field. At theend of the review process, one (3) high quality research paper was selected and accepted forpublication. Accordingly, aim of this issue is to give the researchers an opportunity to share the resultsof their academic studies. . There are different research topics discussed in the articles. For example;Daniyar Kaldiyarov, Daniya Nurmukhankyzy, Assel Bedelbaeva, Sanzhar Kaldiyarov, OlesyaLemechshenko, Ainur Baltabayeva, State modification and market mechanism for agroindustrialcomplex management in the region, Katarina Vavrova, Mariana Sedliacikova, Stimulating factor in theprovision of tax credits in Slovakia, Solomon Arhin, Frederick Joe Santuoh,MEthical issues in Cocoapurchasing and transportation. Perspective of social consumerism with Christian blending fromProverbs 11:1.We present many thanks to all the contributors who helped us to publish this issue.Best regards,Prof. Dr. Huseyin UzunboyluEditor – in Chief

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