scholarly journals The year 2021 of the International Journal of Innovation – IJI

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-438
Author(s):  
Isabel Cristina Scafuto ◽  
Priscila Rezende da Costa ◽  
Marcos Rogerio Mazieri

The International Journal of Innovation: IJI has been making some changes in recent years and, therefore, increasingly improving its content. These are transformations that would not be possible without the incessant collaboration of the entire IJI team. Ther are always tireless and impeccable. It would not be possible without all the articles submitted by the authors who believe and choose the IJI for their publications. It would not be possible either, without the reviewers who contribute with a lot of dedication, spending their time and knowledge on improving the articles to publish the IJI. We are immensely grateful to everyone! Special thanks to UNINOVE, who have always supported and continue to support IJI.At the end of 2021, we would like to present some data and information that enable readers, authors, and reviewers to follow the evolution of the IJI. We remain dedicated to raising the bar for the IJI. IJI is in the main databases: Dialnet, EBSCO, ERIHPLUS, Latindex, ProQuest, Redalyc, Redib, Spell, Web of Science and Zeitschriften Datenbank. It is classified in stratum B1 of the new QUALIS/CAPES proposal. It is published every four months (January-April; May-August; September-December) and accepts submissions in Portuguese, English, and Spanish, and published in English only.The International Journal of Innovation: IJI's mission is to serve as a vehicle for the periodic publication of scientific and technological works in innovation with a focus on emerging markets, which study individuals, organizations, ecosystems, and policies. The journal's topics of interest focusing on emerging markets are Innovative Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Learning, Innovation and Sustainability, Internationalization of Innovation, Innovation Systems, Emerging Themes of Innovation, and Digital Transformation. As we have already mentioned in another editorial comment, the IJI accepts scientific articles, technology articles, perspectives, and reviews, in addition to the editorial comment.We now present some data from IJI submissions for this year, 2021 (Table 1). Table 1Submissions to the IJIWorks submitted87Rejections65%Acceptance35% Eighty-seven works were submitted to the IJI, of which 65% were rejected and 35% were approved. With these numbers, we observe that rejection is still high. The rejection happens; most of the time, in the desk-reject the editors perform that. The reasons are: a) the submitted works are not following the scope of the IJI; b) the submitted works do not meet the minimum requirements for a publication and are not considered to proceed to a peer review and blind.When articles move to the stage of blind and peer review, the number of rejections gets smaller. Generally, works are rejected at this stage when the authors do not comply with the evaluators' recommendations. Our intention is, with the help of reviewers and authors, to increasingly improve the quality of submitted articles and increase the number of publications in the IJI.Submissions are from different countries. In this year of 2021, we had the following scenario (Table 2). Table 2Submissions to the IJI - by countryCountrySubmissionsBrazil59Argentina1Colombia1Cuba1Algeria2Indonesia2India3Jordan1Sri Lanka1Mexico1Malasia1Nigeria3Portugal2Saudi Arabia3Tunisia1Turkey1Ukraine1Vietnam2South Africa1TOTAL87 The most significant works submitted are from Brazilian authors, but with a balanced distribution among other countries. We are happy that the IJI is considered a possibility for authors from different countries on our continent and other continents. We want to increase the number of foreign submissions and their publications. We believe that this action is important for the academic community due to the diversity of contexts.The IJI counts on the valuable availability of the evaluators, who we know have to dedicate their precious time to help us improve our work. Our evaluation time is still high, up to 98 days. Some reasons impact this deadline: a) the reviewers are very demanding with researchers with little experience, causing back and forth in the assessments until they reach the expected quality for the article; b) holidays in the middle of the year and at the end of the year delay the evaluations a little; c) evaluators also divide their time with evaluations of academic events throughout the year. Due to these reasons, the publication of the works is also compromised. We took up to 122 days to publish the articles.Another interesting piece of information that we would like to share with our readers is the number of registered users of IJI. IJI has 1270 registered users, including authors, reviewers, and readers. In the last year of 2021, there were 534 new users. It makes us very happy, as the number of users has almost doubled. This action makes us hope to have more works submitted and, consequently, more quality works published.We aim to improve and make the IJI a journal with more impact in the academic and practical environment. With the help of everyone involved, we will improve the level of evaluations and significantly improve the published works. We want to bring relevant content that contributes to science in Brazil and other countries around the world.We thank you all for your help and support in this growing IJI journey!

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suresh K. Rana ◽  
Ranbeer S. Rawal ◽  
Bhawana Dangwal ◽  
Indra D. Bhatt ◽  
Trevor D. Price

Global mountains, including the Himalaya, are highly vulnerable ecosystems, especially given climate and land-use changes. Here, we compile the literature on Himalayan biodiversity in order to assess spatial and taxonomic trends in research during the past 200 years. We identified 35,316 research outputs, including 28,120 journal articles, 3,725 doctoral theses, and 3,471 books. Nepal contributes the largest volume of published literature, followed by west Himalayan Indian states, with relatively few studies on the most biodiverse region lying to the east of Nepal. Publications on Himalayan biodiversity research have increased annually, especially after 1970, with an acceleration since 2000. Among the major taxonomic groups, the largest number of publications is on seed plants (angiosperms), followed by invertebrates (especially arthropods) and vertebrates. Some groups of organisms, notably fungi, bacteria, algae, bryophytes, pteridophytes, etc., are clearly understudied. Among various research disciplines, ecology is the most dominant field followed by agriculture, ethnobiology, and paleontology. Some newer disciplines, including molecular biology and climate change, have contributed to the growth in the number of papers appearing during the last two decades. Despite an encouraging and rapid increase in research papers during this century, they are largely in low-impact-factor journals, likely to be subject to poor peer review, and many doctoral theses remain unpublished. The Government of India's development initiative emphasizes the importance of research in the Himalaya, which can be enhanced by improved quality of peer review and local journals registering in global indexing services.


Author(s):  
Martin Wright

This article integrates existing theory from distributed computing and cryptology with anecdotal material from the cryptocurrency industry, to provide a comprehensive description of the minimum requirements of the hypothetical academic blockchain. The paper argues that such a community could significantly reduce the biases and misconduct that now exist in the academic peer review process. Theory suggests such a system could operate effectively as a distributed encrypted telecommunications network where nodes are anonymous, do not trust each other, and there is minimal central authority. To incentivize the academic community to join such a proposed community, the paper proposes a pseudo-cryptocurrency called litcoin (literature coin). This litcoin-based system would create economic scarcity based on proof of knowledge (POK), which is a synthesis of the proof of work (POW) mechanism used in bitcoin, and the proof of stake (POS) mechanism used in various altcoin communities. The paper argues that the proposed POK system would enable the academic community to more effectively develop the research it finds valuable.


2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 270-282
Author(s):  
Olga Gomilko

Feeling united with academic community reflects in increased responsibility for one’s own quality of work. This is the quality of carrying yearly BASEES Conferences in Cambridge that impresses participants coming from the academic environments in which procedure and scope of events are not really respected. Therefore, learning from this kind of experience is always useful. The most inspiring thing is hope that conferences of such a level someday will become a routine for Ukrainian scholars as well. The more so, because our post-Socialist experience is interesting in itself for our foreign colleagues, since the way which the scientific rationality makes under conditions of overcoming totalitarian repression and aiming at democratic freedom is currently important not for Ukrainians only. Under current conditions, the part of rationality in the dimension of freedom obtains a universal meaning, making the need of reconsidering the phenomena of freedom even more rapid. This article is intended to present to Ukrainian academic community some theoretical and organizational achievements of this year’s BASEES Conference and to engage Ukrainian scholars more actively to participate in international academic events and considering the ways of implementing the experience received into their activities home. This year the conference was dedicated to the fifty years of the Prague Spring. The experience of the Prague Spring in the reflections of the BASEES conference proves the relevance of the issues of freedom and the need to rethink the key concept of modern thinking – progress. The critique of progress that puts under the question the significance of the concept itself for contemporary socio-philosophical discourse is, in the main, directed against progressism as a modern mechanistic version of progress. The revealing of the complex and ambiguous forms of progress in contemporary epoch tends to accept rather than reject the progress.


2015 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew S. Mayernik ◽  
Sarah Callaghan ◽  
Roland Leigh ◽  
Jonathan Tedds ◽  
Steven Worley

Abstract Peer review holds a central place within the scientific communication system. Traditionally, research quality has been assessed by peer review of journal articles, conference proceedings, and books. There is strong support for the peer review process within the academic community, with scholars contributing peer reviews with little formal reward. Reviewing is seen as a contribution to the community as well as an opportunity to polish and refine understanding of the cutting edge of research. This paper discusses the applicability of the peer review process for assessing and ensuring the quality of datasets. Establishing the quality of datasets is a multifaceted task that encompasses many automated and manual processes. Adding research data into the publication and peer review queues will increase the stress on the scientific publishing system, but if done with forethought will also increase the trustworthiness and value of individual datasets, strengthen the findings based on cited datasets, and increase the transparency and traceability of data and publications. This paper discusses issues related to data peer review—in particular, the peer review processes, needs, and challenges related to the following scenarios: 1) data analyzed in traditional scientific articles, 2) data articles published in traditional scientific journals, 3) data submitted to open access data repositories, and 4) datasets published via articles in data journals.


2010 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-29
Author(s):  
Jerry C. Calvanese

ABSTRACT Study Objective: The purpose of this study was to obtain data on various characteristics of peer reviews. These reviews were performed for the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners (NSBME) to assess physician licensees' negligence and/or incompetence. It was hoped that this data could help identify and define certain characteristics of peer reviews. Methods: This study examined two years of data collected on peer reviews. The complaints were initially screened by a medical reviewer and/or a committee composed of Board members to assess the need for a peer review. Data was then collected from the peer reviews performed. The data included costs, specialty of the peer reviewer, location of the peer reviewer, and timeliness of the peer reviews. Results: During the two-year study, 102 peer reviews were evaluated. Sixty-nine percent of the peer-reviewed complaints originated from civil malpractice cases and 15% originated from complaints made by patients. Eighty percent of the complaint physicians were located in Clark County and 12% were located in Washoe County. Sixty-one percent of the physicians who performed the peer reviews were located in Washoe County and 24% were located in Clark County. Twelve percent of the complaint physicians were in practice in the state for 5 years or less, 40% from 6 to 10 years, 20% from 11 to 15 years, 16% from 16 to 20 years, and 13% were in practice 21 years or more. Forty-seven percent of the complaint physicians had three or less total complaints filed with the Board, 10% had four to six complaints, 17% had 7 to 10 complaints, and 26% had 11 or more complaints. The overall quality of peer reviews was judged to be good or excellent in 96% of the reviews. A finding of malpractice was found in 42% of the reviews ordered by the medical reviewer and in 15% ordered by the Investigative Committees. There was a finding of malpractice in 38% of the overall total of peer reviews. The total average cost of a peer review was $791. In 47% of the peer reviews requested, materials were sent from the Board to the peer reviewer within 60 days of the original request and 33% took more than 120 days for the request to be sent. In 48% of the reviews, the total time for the peer review to be performed by the peer reviewer was less than 60 days. Twenty seven percent of the peer reviews took more than 120 days to be returned. Conclusion: Further data is needed to draw meaningful conclusions from certain peer review characteristics reported in this study. However, useful data was obtained regarding timeliness in sending out peer review materials, total times for the peer reviews, and costs.


Author(s):  
TO Jefferson ◽  
P Alderson ◽  
F Davidoff ◽  
E Wager

Logistics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  

Peer review is the driving force of journal development, and reviewers are gatekeepers who ensure that Logistics maintains its standards for the high quality of its published papers [...]


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 138
Author(s):  

Peer review is the driving force of journal development, and reviewers are gatekeepers who ensure that Brain Sciences maintains its standards for the high quality of its published papers [...]


Dairy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-72
Author(s):  

Peer review is the driving force of journal development, and reviewers are gatekeepers who ensure that Dairy maintains its standards for the high quality of its published papers [...]


Cosmetics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 11
Author(s):  

Peer review is the driving force of journal development, and reviewers are gatekeepers who ensure that Cosmetics maintains its standards for the high quality of its published papers [...]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document