scholarly journals Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Revising a Peer-reviewed Manuscript

2022 ◽  
Vol In Press (In Press) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Bahadoran ◽  
Parvin Mirmiran ◽  
Khosrow Kashfi ◽  
Asghar Ghasemi
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Practical Guide ◽  
Different Types

: Getting feedback from the journals’ editorial office upon the peer-review process, revising the manuscript, and responding to reviewers’ comments are the essential parts of scientific publishing. The process of revising seems cumbersome and time-consuming as authors must be engaged probably with many comments and requested changes. Authors are advised to approach the reviewer as a consultant rather than an adversary. They should carefully read and understand comments and then decide how to proceed with each requested change/suggestion. In the case of serious disagreement with reviewer comments or misunderstanding, authors can defer the issue to the editor. Preparing a scientific and well-organized "response to reviews" and the revised version of the manuscript can increase the chance of acceptance. Here, we provide a practical guide on dealing with different types of comments (ie, minor or major revisions, conflicting comments, or those that authors disagree with or cannot adhere to) and how to craft a response to reviews. We also provide the principles for making a successful revision.

scholarly journals Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication and Scientific Publishing

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Bishnu Bahadur Khatri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

Peer review in scholarly communication and scientific publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In the growing interest of scholarly research and publication, this paper tries to discuss about peer review process and its different types to communicate the early career researchers and academics.This paper has used the published and unpublished documents for information collection. It reveals that peer review places the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of scientific publishing. It is the system used to assess the quality of scientific research before it is published. Therefore, it concludes that peer review is used to advancing and testing scientific knowledgeas a quality control mechanism forscientists, publishers and the public.

scholarly journals Evaluating, Improving, and Appreciating Peer Review at IJTMB

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Ann Blair Kennedy, LMT, BCTMB, DrPH
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Improve Efficiency ◽  
Peer Reviewers

  Peer review is a mainstay of scientific publishing and, while peer reviewers and scientists report satisfaction with the process, peer review has not been without criticism. Within this editorial, the peer review process at the IJTMB is defined and explained. Further, seven steps are identified by the editors as a way to improve efficiency of the peer review and publication process. Those seven steps are: 1) Ask authors to submit possible reviewers; 2) Ask reviewers to update profiles; 3) Ask reviewers to “refer a friend”; 4) Thank reviewers regularly; 5) Ask published authors to review for the Journal; 6) Reduce the length of time to accept peer review invitation; and 7) Reduce requested time to complete peer review. We believe these small requests and changes can have a big effect on the quality of reviews and speed in which manuscripts are published. This manuscript will present instructions for completing peer review profiles. Finally, we more formally recognize and thank peer reviewers from 2018–2020.

scholarly journals Online Journals: the Path Towards Visibility and Quality

1970 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 175-184
Author(s):  
Julie Walker
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Online Journal ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Virtuous Cycle ◽  
Journal Visibility

Increasing the visibility of a journal is the key to increasing quality. The International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications works with journal editors in the global South to publish their journals online and to increase the efficiency of the peer review process. Editors are trained in using the Open Journals System software and in online journal management and strategy so they have the tools and knowledge needed to initiate a ‘virtuous cycle' in which visibility leads to an increase in the number and quality of submissions and in turn, increased citations and impact. In order to maximise this increase in quality, it must be supported by strong editorial office processes and management. This article describes some of the issues and strategies faced by the editors INASP works with, placing a particular emphasis on Nepal Journals Online. Key words: INASP; Open Journals System; Journals Online Projects; Nepal Journals Online; journal visibility; peer review DOI: 10.3126/dsaj.v3i0.2786 Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol.3 2009 175-184

scholarly journals Journal retractions in oncology – a bibliometric study

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pan Pantziarka ◽  
Lydie Meheus
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Bibliometric Study ◽  
Focused Attention ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Publishing Process ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Time Period

Background. A number of recent high-profile cases have focused attention on scientific misconduct and other problematic issues with the peer review process. The retraction of journal publications is an important part of the scientific publishing process that serves to remove flawed articles, (including, but not limited to, fraudulent results), from the literature. To date there have been few formal studies of journal retractions in the area of oncology. Methods. This article outlines the results of a bibliometric study of journal retractions from 1983 to 2018. Results. Analysis shows that article lifetime – that is the time period from initial publication to ultimate retraction – has decreased in recent years. It also shows that retraction rate has also increased over the same period. The causes and context of these trends are discussed and reference made to the dangers of scientific misconduct in oncology.

scholarly journals Innovating Editorial Practices: Academic Publishers at Work

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Serge Pascal Johannes Maria Horbach ◽  
Willem Halffman
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Business Value ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Editorial Practices

Abstract Background: Triggered by a series of controversies and diversifying expectations of editorial practices, several innovative peer review procedures and supporting technologies have been proposed. However, adoption of these new initiatives seems slow. This raises questions about the wider conditions for peer review change and about the considerations that inform decisions to innovate. Methods: We carried out field visits to the editorial office of two large academic publishers to study their editorial process. We set out to reveal how the benefits of peer review innovations are understood and to describe the considerations that inform the implementation of innovations.Results: This study shows how the publishers’ internal hierarchy determines whose arguments are most likely to prevail and it explicates the different meanings attached to editorial practices by different actors. We furthermore show that the editorial process is closely connected to commercial practices of creating business value, and the very specific terms in which business value is understood, such as reputation considerations and the urge to increase efficiency.Conclusion: This demonstrates that commercial considerations extend much further than the publishers’ choice for business or publication models and reach into the very heart of the editorial and peer review process.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2022 ◽  
Vol 2148 (1) ◽  
pp. 011003
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Software Tool ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Technical Quality ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Initial Check

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 / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) 1. ICPEM Editors perform an initial check of the manuscript’s suitability upon receipt, and use a software tool to finish the plagiarism analysis, manuscripts are out of conference topics will be rejected directly, generally, authors will receive the result within 3-5 working days in this round. 2. Only the manuscripts passed the initial checking can be submitted to reviewers, ICPEM Editorial Office will then organize the peer-review process performed by independent experts. Papers will be strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts and reviewers. 3. All regular papers are reviewed by at least two reviewers, but usually by three or more, and rated considering: Relevance, Originality, Technical Quality, Significance and Presentation of the submissions; There are four results: 1, Accept; 2, Accept after Minor Revisions; 3, Reconsider after Major Revisions; 4, Reject. 4. Authors have 2-3 weeks to make minor or major revisions after received the comments from reviewers. Usually, one round of major revisions is allowed. 5. Only the submission passed the peer review and accepted by reviewers will be included in the conference proceeding finally. • Conference submission management system: Online Email System • Number of submissions received: 141 • Number of submissions sent for review: 116 (25 papers out of the conference scope are rejected directly) • Number of submissions accepted: 69 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 49% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2-3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 164 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Name : Josh Sheng Affiliation: Hubei Zhongke Research Institute of Nature Science, China Email : [email protected]

scholarly journals A look inside the black box of scientific publishing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Cavalleri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Journal Editor ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Black Boxes ◽  
Process Work

Publishing the results of one’s research is an integral part of the scientific process, yet scholarly journals are often seen as black boxes by researchers. What happens to a paper after it is submitted? Who is deciding on its fate? What is the role of the journal editor and the editorial office? How does the peer-review process work, and are its core principles still relevant in today’s changing publishing landscape? In this talk I will discuss these questions in an attempt to de-mystify the peer review process from an editor’s perspective, and cover the whats, the hows and the whys of peer review.

Submit a Manuscript Quickly

Songings ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-29
Author(s):  
Anhuai Yu
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Good For ◽  
Time Required ◽  
The Cost

Welcome and thank you for considering Songings to submit your manuscript. Since 2021, Evidence Based Communications (EBC) don’t use any peer-review systems, it is good for minimizing the time required for the submission and peer review process, and the cost of publication. You should directly submit your manuscript to the editorial office via email at [email protected] with proper preparations.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2112 (1) ◽  
pp. 011003
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Software Tool ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Technical Quality ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Initial Check

All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) All reviews follow a double-blind process. 1-AOPR Editors perform an initial check of the manuscript’s suitability upon receipt, and use a software tool to finish the plagiarism analysis, manuscripts are out of conference topics will be rejected directly, generally, authors will receive the result within 3-5 working days in this round. 2-Only the manuscripts passed the initial checking can be submitted to reviewers, AOPR Editorial Office will then organize the peer-review process performed by independent experts. Papers will be strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts and reviewers. 3-All regular papers are reviewed by at least two reviewers, but usually by three or more, and rated considering: Relevance, Originality, Technical Quality, Significance and Presentation of the submissions; There are four results: 1, Accept; 2, Accept after Minor Revisions; 3, Reconsider after Major Revisions; 4, Reject. 4-Authors have 2-3 weeks to make minor or major revisions after received the comments from reviewers. Usually, one round of major revisions is allowed. 5-Only the submission passed the peer review and accepted by reviewers will be included in the conference proceeding finally. • Conference submission management system: Online Email System • Number of submissions received: 75 • Number of submissions sent for review: 55 (20 papers out of the conference scope are rejected directly) • Number of submissions accepted: 28 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 37% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2-3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 64 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Josh Sheng [email protected] Please submit this form along with the rest of your files on the submission date written in your publishing agreement. The information you provide will be published as part of your proceedings.

scholarly journals A look inside the black box of scientific publishing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Cavalleri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Journal Editor ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Black Boxes ◽  
Process Work

Publishing the results of one’s research is an integral part of the scientific process, yet scholarly journals are often seen as black boxes by researchers. What happens to a paper after it is submitted? Who is deciding on its fate? What is the role of the journal editor and the editorial office? How does the peer-review process work, and are its core principles still relevant in today’s changing publishing landscape? In this talk I will discuss these questions in an attempt to de-mystify the peer review process from an editor’s perspective, and cover the whats, the hows and the whys of peer review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document