scholarly journals Research Ideas and Outcomes journal (R.I.O.): A novel way to make science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir Hachani
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Atmospheric Chemistry ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
New Era ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
The Cold War

Watch the VIDEO here.Peer review has been a cornerstone of science since the first scientific journals started in the middle of 17th century. It has since evolved from a case by case and non standardized process to a more regulated and organized undertaking. The period at which peer review entered its new phase is the Second World War and the extraordinary boom of scientific output that resulted from the cold war. All this output had to have a receptacle (scientific journals) but also had to be selected due to the big amount of data produced. That is when peer review became unanimously and, to some extent, uniformly implemented. It also became the unavoidable door leading to a number of advantages all researchers are looking for (promotions, funding, prize, etc.).That’s when the human component intervened and made the process a rather biased process subject to all kinds of critics. One of the main (if not the main) problem is the secrecy in which the process is undertaken and that has led to all kind of iniquitous, unjust and  sometimes bizarre decisions. The process tried to inject some kind of openness (going from blind to double blind peer reviewing for example) with little results. The 90’s of the last century saw the Internet slowly becoming more and more used in everyday life and, more importantly, in the scientific and academic research. With all the problems besetting peer review ,Internet’s openness seemed as the best cure to all the grievance peer review elicited. Among the most revolutionary experiences, Faculty of 1000 (F 1000), Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (A.C.P.), Journal of Medical Internet Research (J.M.I.R.), British Medical Journal? Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence ( ETAI) and Biology Direct have introduced new ways to undertake peer review that have somehow alleviated the numerous critics. With Research Ideas Outcomes (RIO), the process enters a new era of openness as its two stages are completely open: the pre submission peer review (part 1) in which the submitter is reviewed before submission by a colleague and could even ask colleagues to help write his proposal and then  open post-publication peer-review (part 2) in which the process is even more open as authors could decide what reviews are published, when and also decide to ask for an in house classic type of review done exclusively by peer reviewers from RIO or let the whole community implement a Post Publication Peer Review that could putatively last as long as the article is on the system. All the process is open in all its steps and allows novelty, among others, to recognize namely reviewers’ work, a task they have so far anonymously and without any reward of any kind. This proposal will explain in details the process and try to understand the (r)evolution this kind of process introduces to the making of science through transparency in a stage of science that has been known to be utterly secretive.

scholarly journals Reviewing articles as a way of professional evaluation of scientific texts: organizational and ethical aspects

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-36
Author(s):  
Svitlana Fiialka ◽  
Olga Trishchuk ◽  
Nadija Figol
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Ethical Aspects ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Texts ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Professional Evaluation ◽  
Single Blind

The purpose of the paper is to summarize the organizational and ethical aspects, problems and prospects of peer reviewing. To do this, from September 2019 to January 2020, a survey of Ukrainian scientists registered in Facebook groups “Ukrainian Scientific Journals”, “Ukrainian Scientists Worldwide”, “Pseudoscience News in Ukraine”, “Higher Education and Science of Ukraine: Decay or Blossom?” and others was conducted. In total, 390 researchers from different disciplines participated in the survey. The results of the survey are following: 8.7% of respondents prefer open peer review, 43.1% – single-blind, 37.7% – double blind, 9.2% – triple blind, 1.3% used to sign a review prepared by the author. 75.6% of respondents had conflicts of interest during peer reviewing. 8.2 % of reviewers never reject articles regardless of their quality. Because usually only editors and authors see reviews, it can lead to the following issues: reviewers can be rude or biased; authors may not adequately respond to grounded criticism; editors may disregard the position of the author or reviewer, and journals may charge for publishing articles without proper peer review.

scholarly journals The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Giordan ◽  
Attila Csikasz-Nagy ◽  
Andrew M. Collings ◽  
Federico Vaggi
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Decision Type ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Decision Times

BackgroundPublishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications.MethodsHere we examine an element of the editorial process ateLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions toeLifesince June 2012, of which 2,750 were sent for peer review, using R and Python to perform the statistical analysis.ResultsThe Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and 5 days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). There was no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates for published articles where the Reviewing Editor served as one of the peer reviewers.ConclusionsAn important aspect ofeLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2056 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
State University ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Organizations ◽  
Virtual Conference ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

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) Single-blind • Conference submission management system: Morressier virtual conference and publishing platform • Number of submissions received: 76 • Number of submissions sent for review: 76 • Number of submissions accepted: 71 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 93.4 • Average number of reviews per paper: 1 • Total number of reviewers involved: 8 • Any additional info on review process: Typical review questionnaire like in leading scientific journals and detailed review about value and novelty of the publications reviewed. The Referees are from universities and scientific organizations from Russia, Byelorussia, China, Canada, India. • Contact person for queries: Name : Professor Victor Belyaev Affiliation: Moscow Region State University (MRSU) Email : [email protected]

scholarly journals The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Giordan ◽  
Attila Csikasz-Nagy ◽  
Andrew M. Collings ◽  
Federico Vaggi
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Decision Type ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Decision Times

BackgroundPublishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications.MethodsHere we examine an element of the editorial process ateLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions toeLifesince June 2012, of which 2,747 were sent for peer review. This subset of 2747 papers was then analysed in detail.  ResultsThe Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and five days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). Moreover, editors acting as reviewers had no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates.ConclusionsAn important aspect ofeLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.

scholarly journals Charity is welcome: The international benefits and pitfalls of peer Review

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Steel ◽  
Amy Price ◽  
Bhavna Seth ◽  
Rakesh Biswas ◽  
Pranab Chatterjee
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Traditional Method ◽  
Academic Work ◽  
Center Stage ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
The World ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Way

Peer review is the traditional method for validating academic work and this process is not without complications. Debates about the way peer reviewing is accomplished, the hazy but sensational world of retractions and the costs of publishing for authors are taking center stage. In no other field do people conceive and build the work, pay for it, inspect it, distribute it and buy it back again for their continued survival. Still after all this investment they can struggle for rights of access. In order to stem the tide of discontent, incentives for peer reviewers were introduced. The authors investigate the many faceted approaches to incentivize the process of peer review and consider what value they add, if any. The authors explore other avenues to benefit the largely anonymous and uncredited work of peer reviewers who remain the sentinels of the world of published evidence.

scholarly journals Criteria for Peer Reviewing the Original Articles Submitted to a Biomedical Journal: Intellectual Honesty is the Best Policy.

2004 ◽  
Vol 43 (152) ◽  
pp. 103-110
Author(s):  
Bishnu Hari Paudel
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Quality Review ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Biomedical Publication ◽  
Timely Review ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Biomedical Publications ◽  
Review Criteria

Peer review - a process of assessing the quality of manuscripts submitted to a journal – is an establishednorm in biomedical publications. It is viewed as an extension of scientific process. The peer-reviewed researcharticles are considered trustworthy because they are believed to be unbiased and independent. The processof reviewing is a privilege and prestige. It is highly responsible, intellectually honest, and difficult job.Being expert in certain area of biomedical science is a prerequisite for reviewers. Young peer reviewerstrained in epidemiology or statistics produce high-quality review. The International Congresses on PeerReview in Biomedical Publication have shown many unresolved issues related to preparation or handling ofmanuscripts by a journal. Therefore, it is vital to identify authentic peer reviewers to ensure qualitypublication, thus, a set of peer review criteria is proposed for peer reviewing original articles. It is useful inquantifying (scoring) the manuscript quality. The proposed scoring system yields three categories ofmanuscripts: the first category is considered acceptable for publication after minor modification by editorialboard and/or reviewers, the second – requires rewriting and resubmission, and the third – rejected. Thesecriteria are preliminary guidelines, and require timely review. They are expected to sensitise peer reviewers,editors, contributors, and readers to move towards greater honesty and responsibility while working withmanuscripts. In summary, if the criteria are used they will facilitate editorial management of manuscripts,render more justice to authors and biomedical science, and improve publication quality.Key Words: Biomedical publication, peer review, peer review criteria, scoring of manuscripts, categories of manuscripts, journal of Nepal Medical Association.

Peer Reviewers as Co-Authors

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matheus Pereira Lobo
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Reward System ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Open peer review is a process in which names of peer reviewers of papers submitted to academic journals are disclosed to the authors of the papers in question. Peer reviewing is a tough task, it requires large amounts of knowledge and effort. Reviewers usually work in the same discipline as the authors of the paper under consideration. It seems natural to ponder that those reviewers could give major contributions if they could sign the paper as one of the co-authors. Here we propose that open peer reviewers should join the list of co-authors as a reward system based on transparency, expertise and justice.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 897 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
High Standard ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Standards

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 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: EasyChair System • Number of submissions received: 54 (46 Full papers + 8 Abstracts) • Number of submissions sent for review: 46 • Number of submissions accepted: 24 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 52.17% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 26 • Any additional info on review process: REEE holds the belief that the academic research work should be original and published only once. Each of selected paper was anonymously reviewed by two/three professional experts in the related subject area to ensure the final high standard and quality of each accepted submission. Authors have to revise according to reviewers’ suggestions before submitting the final paper. • Contact person for queries: Eden Mamut ([email protected]) Polytechcnic of Porto, Portugal

scholarly journals Charity is welcome: The international benefits and pitfalls of peer Review

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Steel ◽  
Amy Price ◽  
Bhavna Seth ◽  
Rakesh Biswas ◽  
Pranab Chatterjee
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Traditional Method ◽  
Academic Work ◽  
Center Stage ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
The World ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Way

Peer review is the traditional method for validating academic work and this process is not without complications. Debates about the way peer reviewing is accomplished, the hazy but sensational world of retractions and the costs of publishing for authors are taking center stage. In no other field do people conceive and build the work, pay for it, inspect it, distribute it and buy it back again for their continued survival. Still after all this investment they can struggle for rights of access. In order to stem the tide of discontent, incentives for peer reviewers were introduced. The authors investigate the many faceted approaches to incentivize the process of peer review and consider what value they add, if any. The authors explore other avenues to benefit the largely anonymous and uncredited work of peer reviewers who remain the sentinels of the world of published evidence.

scholarly journals Volume 9, Issue 2, Formation

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hayder A. L. Mossa ◽  
◽  
Taif Alawsi ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Ethical Code ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Peer Review Procedure

The editors of the Iraqi Journal of Embryos and Infertility Researches (IJEIR) are thankful to the huge efforts made by the reviewers in peer- reviewing the submitted manuscripts. Thanks to their efforts the second issue of the 9th volume is now available online with open access to the articles content. We are looking forward in inclusion in relevant indexing in the near future. We would like to acknowledge the reviewers for their contribution, and we wish them the greatest success. We ensured the anonymity of both reviewers and authors and followed a double-blind peer-review procedure. Our published articles are under the creative common attribution license. We strictly followed the COPE ethical code in the published studies. Our articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document