Reasons for Manuscript Rejection at Internal and Peer-review Stages

The noble aim of publishing an article is to drive the wheel of scientific research forward; pragmatically speaking, though, and that is the case of many authors, a publication is a set criterion for their graduation or promotion. When publishing an article is mentioned, authors tend to contemplate rejection. Some fear rejection to the point of refraining from drafting the manuscript. To identify the most common reasons why submissions are rejected, internally by the journal editors (also referred to as preview or screening stage), and externally by the blind reviewers, we analysed the preview and review comments of 100 rejected submissions to the International Journal of Education and literacy Studies (IJELS) in the period between 2018 and 2020. The results of inductive thematic analysis indicated that the main reasons why submissions were rejected at the preview stage were problems with originality, poor language, scope, format, and organization. At the review stage, the main reasons were methodology, organization, language, insignificance, and literature review. Additionally, other less common reasons why manuscripts were rejected were that they lacked clear and conventional result reports, in-depth discussions, and thick conclusions, relevant, current, and impactful references among others to be discussed in this article. Many of these issues are, of course, fixable and future authors are highly encouraged to go through this paper and treat it as a guideline that will improve the quality of their manuscripts, and therefore, they will stand higher chances of acceptance.

Download Full-text

Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication and Scientific Publishing

Nepalese Journal of Development and Rural Studies ◽

10.3126/njdrs.v17i0.34947 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Online Journals: the Path Towards Visibility and Quality

Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology ◽

10.3126/dsaj.v3i0.2786 ◽

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

Download Full-text

Preserving the Quality of Scientific Research: Peer Review of Research Articles

Scientific Scholarly Communication - Fascinating Life Sciences ◽

10.1007/978-3-319-50627-2_6 ◽

2017 ◽

pp. 73-99 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Pali U. K. De Silva ◽

Candace K. Vance

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Research Articles

Download Full-text

‘We struggle and muddle.’ A qualitative study exploring community ABI therapists’ experiences of using, training in and implementing behaviour interventions

Brain Impairment ◽

10.1017/brimp.2020.6 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-16

Author(s):

Jai Jason Carmichael ◽

Amelia J. Hicks ◽

Kate Rachel Gould ◽

Timothy J. Feeney ◽

Penelope Analytis ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Content Analysis ◽

Thematic Analysis ◽

Community Integration ◽

Community Practice ◽

Structured Interviews ◽

Clinician Training ◽

Australian Community ◽

Challenging Behaviours ◽

Inductive Thematic Analysis

Abstract Objectives: Individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI) may present with challenging behaviours (CB) that place themselves and others at risk of harm and impact their community integration. It is crucial for community ABI therapists to successfully train in and implement behaviour interventions. The current study aimed to investigate community ABI therapists’ experiences of using, training in and implementing behaviour interventions. An additional aim was to determine these therapists’ understanding of Positive Behaviour Support (PBS), one approach to addressing CB with a focus on improving quality of life. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 Australian community ABI therapists about their experiences of using, training in and implementing behaviour interventions and understanding of PBS. Inductive thematic analysis and content analysis were performed on interview transcripts. Findings: The thematic analysis resulted in the generation of six themes which described the difficulties participants faced in training in and delivering behaviour interventions and identified their training and implementation needs. The content analysis resulted in 10 categories that characterised participants’ understanding of PBS, which centred around the absence of consequences, a focus on antecedents, person-centred practice and encouraging prosocial alternatives to CB. Conclusions: The findings highlight a need and desire for more practical and interactive clinician training in behaviour interventions for individuals with ABI. Moreover, the findings suggest a limited understanding of PBS amongst community ABI therapists. Important considerations for the development of clinician training in ABI behaviour interventions and subsequent implementation into community practice are discussed.

Download Full-text

Investigating Cascade Training of CEFR-Aligned Standards-Based English Language Curriculum (SBELC) in Rural Malaysia

International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research ◽

10.26803/ijlter.20.7.6 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 20 (7) ◽

pp. 100-117

Author(s):

J. W Ong ◽

A. J. Ahmad Tajuddin

Keyword(s):

Literature Review ◽

Quantitative Study ◽

Curriculum Reform ◽

Thematic Analysis ◽

English Language ◽

Training Experience ◽

Language Curriculum ◽

Training Structures ◽

Teachers Training

This article describes a study to understand teachers’ experience in implementing the CEFR-Aligned Standards-Based English Language Curriculum (SBELC) in rural Sabah, Malaysia. The literature review revealed many cases where curriculum reform was not implemented as intended due to factors such as inappropriate training structures and inadequate training, understanding, and resources. Compared to other regions in Malaysia, rural Sabah schools may face a more acute situation due to teachers’ lack of experience and resource shortages for the implementation of training and teaching. In this study, the researchers interviewed six teachers, with two of them also serving as trainers of the new curriculum. Transcripts were analysed using deductive thematic analysis. The codes revealed that teachers in general had a positive training experience that was reflective, open to reinterpretation, and with a degree of decentralisation of expertise. There were also issues where quality of training deteriorated as the levels progressed, due to lack of resources allocated. This article offers some suggestions to enhance rural Sabah teachers’ training experience. A quantitative study of a larger scale should be done to further confirm the findings of this study.

Download Full-text

Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not?

Scientometrics ◽

10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

J. A. García ◽

Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez ◽

J. Fdez-Valdivia

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Hybrid Mode ◽

Optimal Price ◽

Benchmark Scenario ◽

Journal Editors ◽

Peer Reviewing ◽

Peer Reviewers ◽

Review Reports ◽

Review Model

AbstractGiven how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay.

Download Full-text

Blind versus Nonblind Review: Survey of Selected Medical Journals

Drug Intelligence & Clinical Pharmacy ◽

10.1177/106002808802200720 ◽

1988 ◽

Vol 22 (7-8) ◽

pp. 601-602 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

John D. Cleary ◽

Bruce Alexander

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

English Language ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Medical Journals ◽

Journal Editors ◽

Select Group ◽

Lengthy Process

The publication of scientific research in medical journals is a lengthy process. Submitted manuscripts are often reviewed by two or more outside reviewers who evaluate each manuscript for publication acceptability. The process of manuscript evaluation by an editor-selected reviewer (“peers” or “referees”) is termed “peer review.” One issue involving the peer-review process is the use of blind versus nonblind referees. The purpose of this survey was to determine the percentage of a select group of medicine-related journals that blind their reviewers. We surveyed 114 English language journals. Journal editors were sent a survey that asked two questions: (1) are the referees who review your manuscripts blinded to the identity of the authors? and (2) is the editor blinded to the identity of the authors until after the review of the manuscripts is complete? Ninety-six of 114 (84.2 percent) surveys were returned. Ten journals published invited manuscripts only and were excluded from the survey. Only 18.6 percent (16 of 86) of the journals currently blind referees. None of the journals' editors were blind to the identity of the manuscripts' authors.

Download Full-text

A qualitative analysis of stakeholder experiences with Registered Reports Funding Partnerships

Wellcome Open Research ◽

10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17029.1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 6 ◽

pp. 230

Author(s):

Katie Drax ◽

Robbie Clark ◽

Christopher D. Chambers ◽

Marcus Munafò ◽

Jacqueline Thompson

Keyword(s):

Publication Bias ◽

Thematic Analysis ◽

Research Question ◽

Companion Paper ◽

Structured Interviews ◽

Journal Editors ◽

Potential Benefits ◽

Partnership Models ◽

Study Designs

Background: Registered Reports (RRs) could be a way to increase the quality of scientific research and literature, such as by reducing publication bias and increasing the rigour of study designs. These potential benefits have led to Registered Report funding partnerships (RRFPs or partnerships for short) between research funders and academic journals who collaborate to encourage researchers to publish RRs. In this study we investigated the research question: “What are the experiences of the stakeholders (authors, reviewers, journal editors, funders) in the various partnership models?”. Our companion paper addresses a related, but separate, research question. Methods: We conducted a thematic analysis of 32 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (funders, editors, authors, reviewers, matchmakers) from six partnerships. Results: Interviewees had highly variable perceptions and experiences, reflecting the complex and nuanced impacts of partnerships. We identified 6 themes: “Importance of communication with authors and reviewers”, “Influence on study design”, “Appropriateness of partners”, “Potential to reduce publication bias”, “Impact on reviewer workload”, and “Insufficient evidence”. Conclusions: This was the first investigation into these novel initiatives. We hope that our findings can benefit and shape current and future partnerships.

Download Full-text

Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey

Research Integrity and Peer Review ◽

10.1186/s41073-019-0083-5 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Holly K. Grossetta Nardini ◽

Janene Batten ◽

Melissa C. Funaro ◽

Rolando Garcia-Milian ◽

Kate Nyhan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Peer Review ◽

Online Survey ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Health Sciences ◽

Flow Diagram ◽

Journal Editors ◽

Review Systematic

Abstract Background Developing a comprehensive, reproducible literature search is the basis for a high-quality systematic review (SR). Librarians and information professionals, as expert searchers, can improve the quality of systematic review searches, methodology, and reporting. Likewise, journal editors and authors often seek to improve the quality of published SRs and other evidence syntheses through peer review. Health sciences librarians contribute to systematic review production but little is known about their involvement in peer reviewing SR manuscripts. Methods This survey aimed to assess how frequently librarians are asked to peer review systematic review manuscripts and to determine characteristics associated with those invited to review. The survey was distributed to a purposive sample through three health sciences information professional listservs. Results There were 291 complete survey responses. Results indicated that 22% (n = 63) of respondents had been asked by journal editors to peer review systematic review or meta-analysis manuscripts. Of the 78% (n = 228) of respondents who had not already been asked, 54% (n = 122) would peer review, and 41% (n = 93) might peer review. Only 4% (n = 9) would not review a manuscript. Respondents had peer reviewed manuscripts for 38 unique journals and believed they were asked because of their professional expertise. Of respondents who had declined to peer review (32%, n = 20), the most common explanation was “not enough time” (60%, n = 12) followed by “lack of expertise” (50%, n = 10). The vast majority of respondents (95%, n = 40) had “rejected or recommended a revision of a manuscript| after peer review. They based their decision on the “search methodology” (57%, n = 36), “search write-up” (46%, n = 29), or “entire article” (54%, n = 34). Those who selected “other” (37%, n = 23) listed a variety of reasons for rejection, including problems or errors in the PRISMA flow diagram; tables of included, excluded, and ongoing studies; data extraction; reporting; and pooling methods. Conclusions Despite being experts in conducting literature searches and supporting SR teams through the review process, few librarians have been asked to review SR manuscripts, or even just search strategies; yet many are willing to provide this service. Editors should involve experienced librarians with peer review and we suggest some strategies to consider.

Download Full-text

LITERATURE REVIEW: PERCEPTION AND QUALITY OF WOMEN'S LIFE WITH INFERTILITY [KAJIAN LITERATUR: PERSEPSI DAN KUALITAS HIDUP PEREMPUAN DENGAN INFERTILITAS]

Nursing Current Jurnal Keperawatan ◽

10.19166/nc.v7i2.2279 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. 9

Author(s):

Belet Lydia Ingrit

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Literature Review ◽

Thematic Analysis ◽

Negative Impact ◽

Google Scholar ◽

Research Articles ◽

Inclusion Criteria ◽

Research Subjects ◽

Bahasa Indonesia

Infertility is the failure to get a pregnancy after at least one year of sexual intercourse without using contraception. Many efforts that have been made by infertil women to get pregnant but not a few have failed treatment. Perception will affect the adaptation and quality of life of a woman. Therefore the purpose of this literature review is to explore perceptions and quality of life of women with infertility. Research articles were obtained from two databases namely EBSCO and Google Scholar. Literature search uses keywords (Indonesian and English), namely Perception and quality of life of women with infertility with inclusion criteria for research articles from 2009-2019, primary articles, full text and research subjects are infertil women (both primary and secondary). From 464 research articles, six articles were reviewed that met all the inclusion criteria and objectives of this literature review. Six articles obtained were then made critical appraisals which were then analyzed using simplified thematic analysis. The theme that emerged from this literature review was the negative impact, quality of life and handling of infertility. Based on the results of the review of this article, it is necessary to support both social and emotional systems for infertility women to achieve a better quality of life.BAHASA INDONESIA ABSTRAK: Infertilitas adalah kegagalan untuk mendapatkan kehamilan setelah setidaknya satu tahun berhubungan seksual tanpa menggunakan alat kontrasepsi. Banyak upaya yang sudah dilakukan perempuan infertil untuk bisa hamil namun tidak sedikit yang gagal dalam pengobatan. Persepsi akan memengaruhi adaptasi dan kualitas hidup seorang perempuan. Oleh karena itu tujuan kajian literatur ini adalah untuk menggali persepsi dan kualitas hidup peremuan dengan infertil. Artikel penelitian didapatkan dari dua database yaitu EBSCO dan Google Scholar. Pencarian literatur menggunakan kata kunci (bahasa Indonesia dan bahasa Inggris) yaitu persepsi (Perception) dan kualitas hidup perempuan dengan infertilitas (Quality of life women with infertility) dengan kriteria inklusi artikel penelitian dari tahun 2009-2019, artikel primer, fulltext dan subjek penelitian adalah perempuan infertil (baik primer maupun sekunder). Dari 464 artikel penelitian didapatkan enam artikel yang direview yang memenuhi semua kriteria inklusi dan tujuan dari kajian literatur ini. Enam artikel yang didapatkan kemudian dilakukan penilaian kritis (critical appraisal) yang kemudian dianalisis menggunakan simplified thematic analysis. Tema yang muncul dari kajian literatur ini adalah dampak negatif, kualitas hidup dan penanganan infertilitas. Berdasarkan hasil review artikel ini, dibutuhkan support system baik sosial maupun emosional bagi perempuan infertilitas untuk mencapai kualitas hidup yang lebih baik.

Download Full-text