review process
Recently Published Documents





2022 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20
Anna Stepanova ◽  
Alexis Weaver ◽  
Joanna Lahey ◽  
Gerianne Alexander ◽  
Tracy Hammond

Computer science ( CS ) majors are in high demand and account for a large part of national computer and information technology job market applicants. Employment in this sector is projected to grow 12% between 2018 and 2028, which is faster than the average of all other occupations. Published data are available on traditional non-computer science-specific hiring processes. However, the hiring process for CS majors may be different. It is critical to have up-to-date information on questions such as “what positions are in high demand for CS majors?,” “what is a typical hiring process?,” and “what do employers say they look for when hiring CS graduates?” This article discusses the analysis of a survey of 218 recruiters hiring CS graduates in the United States. We used Atlas.ti to analyze qualitative survey data and report the results on what positions are in the highest demand, the hiring process, and the resume review process. Our study revealed that a software developer was the most common job the recruiters were looking to fill. We found that the hiring process steps for CS graduates are generally aligned with traditional hiring steps, with an additional emphasis on technical and coding tests. Recruiters reported that their hiring choices were based on reviewing resume’s experience, GPA, and projects sections. The results provide insights into the hiring process, decision making, resume analysis, and some discrepancies between current undergraduate CS program outcomes and employers’ expectations.

2022 ◽  
John Chen

As a global open access publisher, Tech Science Press is dedicated to disseminating cutting-edge scholarly research among scientific community by advocating an immediate, world-wide and barrier-free access to the research we publish. To ensure all publication meeting our ethical and scientific quality standards, each submission goes through a rigorous review process, including pre-peer-review by relevant editorial board, a single-blind peer-review process by scientific experts, revision following reviewers’ comments as well as final approval by the editorial board.

Robert G. Radwin

Today’s challenges for scientific publications require operating at a time when trust in science depends upon effective vetting of data, identifying questionable practices, and scrutinizing research. The Editor-in-Chief has an invaluable opportunity to influence the direction and reputation of our field but also has the responsibility to confront contemporary trends that threaten the publication of quality research. The editor is responsible for maintaining strict scientific standards for the journal through the exercise of good judgment and steadfast commitment to upholding the highest ethical principles. Opportunities exist to create and implement new initiatives for improving the peer review process and elevating the journal’s stature. The journal must address the challenges as well as effectively communicate with the public, who seek a reliable source of information.

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Anne Zimmerman

Dear readers, advisors, authors, editors, and peer reviewers, As we welcome the new year, we look forward to the opportunity to publish new arguments and pose challenging questions about ethical dilemmas in the realm of medicine, science, and technology. Reflecting on the peer review process at this juncture seems especially important considering the bioethics climate and the challenges in doing justice to ethical dilemmas. Unlike scientific peer review, replicability, reliability, and evaluation of methods are largely irrelevant to much of the bioethics literature, except for empirical research. Much like papers published in law, the humanities, and social sciences, peer reviewing contextual arguments in bioethics requires us to evaluate argument validity and ensure that arguments are based on facts or appropriate hypotheticals. The risk that voices are quieted merely because the editorial staff or peer reviewers would choose the other side of an argument is high and requires mitigation steeped in serious processes built into the peer review system. It is especially important to hear diverse views that represent many points along a continuum during polarized times. The papers that offer conceptual arguments that we tend to publish at Voices in Bioethics call for an examination of logic and argument foremost, with a special emphasis on which conclusions are drawn from the premises supplied. At Voices in Bioethics, the peer review process aims to be inclusive, so we balance our instincts to criticize with our goal to accept as many papers that meet our guidelines as possible. We welcome new arguments, especially ones that highlight overlooked viewpoints, considerations, or stakeholders. We acknowledge how many great ideas result from people who speak English as a second or third language, or who do not use English at all. All of those affected by or who observe an ethical dilemma are welcome to submit their ethics arguments surrounding health care, technology, the environment, and the broader sciences. We are happy to read papers by those outside of bioethics and those with any level of education. We use the peer review questions about mechanics only to inform editors of what the process might entail. We do not accept or reject based on mechanics or style alone. The nature of many bioethics journals is to publish papers that may reflect the bioethics status quo or apply common bioethical frameworks to new problems. In addition to that, we try to showcase new ways of thinking and additional considerations. After all, publishing is not about publishing papers that mimic older well-cited articles or that apply only those frameworks learned in the classroom. It is about giving voice and contributing to an open access ecosystem where new and old ideas coexist, their worth measured not in hits or likes, but in their contribution to ethical analysis. Wishing a happy new year to our advisors, editors, peer reviewers, authors, and readers.

2022 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-34
I Gusti Ayu Agung Omika DEWI

In general, in qualitative research there are several methods of data collection, namely documentation, interviews, surveys, focus group discussions, observation, participatory arrangements and qualitative audio-visual material. The aim of this paper discusses about the method of data collection in qualitative research, especially in accounting research interpretive. After going through the literature review process, it can be seen that the quality of data in interpretive accounting research is strongly influenced by the ability of the researcher to carry out its role as a research instrument. Researchers should be able to ' merge' with the object of research so as to choose or combine the data collection method that is appropriate to be able to understand and interpret the research object corresponding subject's perspective or the communities studied in depth according interpretive characteristics.

2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Alexandra Revez ◽  
Niall Dunphy ◽  
Clodagh Harris ◽  
Fionn Rogan ◽  
Edmond Byrne ◽  

Abstract Background Transition discourses are gaining prominence in efforts to imagine a future that adequately addresses the urgent need to establish low carbon and climate resilient pathways. Within these discourses the ‘public’ is seen as central to the creation and implementation of appropriate interventions. The role of public engagement in societal transformation while essential, is also complex and often poorly understood. The purpose of this paper is to enhance our understanding regarding public engagement and to address the often superficial and shallow policy discourse on this topic. Main text The paper offers a review of evolving literature to map emergent public engagement in processes of transition and change. We adopt a pragmatic approach towards literature retrieval and analysis which enables a cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral review. We use a scoping review process and the three spheres of transformation framework (designated as the practical, political and personal spheres) to explore trends within this complex research field. The review draws from literature from the last two decades in the Irish context and looks at emergence and evolving spaces of public engagement within various systems of change including energy, food, coastal management and flood adaptation, among others. Conclusions The results highlight the siloed and fragmented way in which public engagement in transitions is carried and we propose a more cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary approach which depends on bringing into dialogue often contrasting theories and perspectives. The paper also illustrates some shifting engagement approaches. For instance, nexus articles between the practical and political spheres suggest deeper forms of public engagement beyond aggregated consumer behaviour to align technological delivery with institutional and societal contexts. While most articles in the practical sphere draw largely on techno-economic insights this influence and cross-disciplinarity is likely to draw in further innovations. Nexus articles between the political and personal sphere are also drawing on shifting ideas of public engagement and largely stress the need to disrupt reductive notions of engagement and agency within our institutions. Many of these articles call attention to problems with top-down public engagement structures and in various ways show how they often undermine and marginalise different groups.

2022 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-276
Müge Aygün ◽  
Yasemin Hacıoğlu

The purpose of this study is to review the postgraduate theses on science/physics education in Turkey to guide the teaching of the sound concept. Although the theses examined within the scope of this study belong to a certain region, the previous literature shows us that the learning difficulties/misconceptions are generally independent of culture. Thirty-three theses in the database of The Council of Higher Education Thesis Center were analyzed inductively in the semi-systematic review process. For this, the stages of content analyses were used: Elimination and coding, placing them in themes, ensuring reliability and validity were followed respectively. Unit of analyses was conclusions of the theses and suggestions of the theses. In conclusion, both conventional and contemporary approaches have a positive effect on achievement or conceptual change on the sound concept. On the other hand, students and teachers/ candidates, in general, cannot relate their knowledge of sound to daily life, their level of knowledge is inadequate, and they have misconceptions/errors and confusions. It is beneficial to consider this situation in education. The most important output of this study is the lists of possible misconceptions or confusion about the concept of sound. Teachers and researchers can use these lists in their lessons or research. Keywords: education, physics, science, sound, thesis

2022 ◽  
Cassandra Lane Ettinger ◽  
Madhumala K. Sadanandappa ◽  
Kivanc Görgülü ◽  
Karen Coghlan ◽  
Kenneth K. Hallenbeck ◽  

The use of preprints, research manuscripts shared publicly before the traditional peer review process, is becoming more common in the life sciences. Early career researchers (ECRs) benefit from posting preprints as they are shareable, citable, and prove productivity. However, the decision to preprint a manuscript involves a discussion among all co-authors, and ECRs are often not the decision-makers. Therefore, ECRs may find themselves in situations where they are interested in posting a preprint but are unsure how to approach their co-authors or advisor about preprinting. Leveraging our own experiences as ECRs, and feedback from the research community, we have constructed a guide for ECRs who are considering preprinting - to enable them to take ownership over the process, and to raise awareness about preprinting options. We hope that this guide helps ECRs to initiate conversations about preprinting with co-authors or consider whether to preprint their future research.

Scott E. Lewis ◽  
James Nyachwaya ◽  
Ajda Kahveci ◽  
Gwendolyn A. Lawrie ◽  
Nicole Graulich

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document