scholarly journals Double Anonymity and the Peer Review Process

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1274-1277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J.C. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Important Method ◽  
Fields Of Study ◽  
Almost All

The process of peer review for submissions to scientific journals is a well-established and widely used procedure. Review by one's peers is a well-recognised and long-standing method of appraisal. Throughout all branches of science, medicine, humanities, art, literature, politics, sport, and in fact almost all areas of human endeavour, the judgement of work by an individual or group of experts in similar fields of study is the most rigorous and valuable form of recognition. “Peer review”, as this process is commonly known, is an important method of assuring quality, relevance and novelty of work. However, is there still room for improvement in the procedural aspects of peer review?

Judges and defendants

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianfranco Pacchioni
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Contemporary Science ◽  
The Social ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Scientific Publishers

This chapter explores how validation of new results works in science. It also looks at the peer-review process, both pros and cons, as well as scientific communication, scientific journals, and scientific publishers. We give an assessment of the total number of existing journals with peer review. Other topics discussed include the phenomenon of open access, predatory journals and their impact on contemporary science, and the market of scientific publications. Finally, we touch on degenerative phenomena, such as the market of co-authors, bogus papers, and irrelevant and wrong studies, as well as the problem and the social cost of irreproducible results.

Stretched peer-review on unexpected results (GMOs)

2005 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 99-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.I. Myhr
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Unexpected Findings ◽  
Early Warnings

Science is the basis for governance of risk from genetically modified organisms (GMO), and it is also a primary source of legitimacy for policy decision. However, recently the publication of unexpected results has caused controversies and challenged the way in which science should be performed, be published in scientific journals, and how preliminary results should be communicated. These studies have subsequently, after being accepted for publication within the peer-review process of leading scientific journals, been thoroughly re-examined by many actors active within the GMO debate and thereby drawn extensive media coverage. The publicized charges that the research involved does not constitute significant evidence or represent bad science have in fact deflected attention away from the important questions related to ecological and health risks raised by the research. In this paper, I will argue that unexpected findings may represent “early warnings.” Although early warnings may not represent reality, such reports are necessary to inform other scientists and regulators, and should be followed up by further research to reveal the validity of the warnings. Furthermore, science that embraces robust, participatory and transparent approaches will be imperative in the future to reduce the present controversy surrounding GMO use and release.

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 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 Chief Editor's Voice

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Prof. Dr. Ashok Kumar Jha
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Research Journal ◽  
Service Commission ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Double Blinded

The RMC of the campus feels much pleasure to publish the annual multi-disciplinary peer reviewed research journal DRISTIKON as vol. 11(1). The journal and the articles published in it are clear evidence and fulfill the requirements laid down by UGC, Nepal, Tribhuvan University Service Commission, APA 7th ed. and other platforms. The journal is designed to serve as an outlet for an intellectual forum for the communication of intellectual ideas among professionals and other social scientists in relevant areas in general and with special reference to Nepal. The board welcomes all the professionals, researchers and all those interested to publish their research findings with significant contribution to society, education sector and international platform. Authors are also encouraged to submit papers which are related to current international, national or local issues. Almost all the scholarly and research articles published in the journal undergo the editorial peer review process prior to publication to fulfill the requirements of peer review process guided by UGC, Nepal and international standard. The goal of the peer review process is to ensure that the valid article is accepted, the messy article cleaned up, and the invalid article rejected. The board of editors has accepted the reviewer’s recommendations. All the articles submitted for publication are subjected to rigorous double blinded peer review to ensure its quality before it gets published.  Manuscripts submitted to this journal must not have been published or accepted for publication or submitted for publication elsewhere. The journal strictly follows guidelines of APA 7th ed. as well as strongly opposes plagiarized contents without proper citation. Following the necessary corrections and additions resulting from the review process the twenty accepted papers were included into the issue covering the specific areas of Nepali, English, Political Science, Science and Management. The cooperation extended by scholars and institutions in publishing this journal is highly appreciated. The opinions expressed in the articles are the author’s own and do not reflect the view of either the publisher or the editorial board. All manuscripts once published becomes the property of the publisher. We hope that inspiration and encouragement from the readers will continue to keep the ‘Dristikon’ alive and develop. We are also looking forward to receiving your comments and suggestions for further improvement in the future. We are grateful to the peer reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. The editorial board heartily thanks all the writers who have contributed research articles. We would also like to give special thanks to the campus chief Mr. Damodar Bhandari for his constant support in terms of finance and administration for the publication of this journal.

scholarly journals The limited value of journal peer review in public health: a case series of tobacco harm reduction articles.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl V. Phillips ◽  
Igor Burstyn ◽  
Brian L. Carter
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Harm Reduction ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Tobacco Harm Reduction ◽  
Almost All

Background: A widespread belief holds that the journal peer-review process ensures that published claims are correct. In public health this results in consumer, clinical, and policy decisions being based on blind faith in the accuracy of claims that appear in journals. Methods: We wrote reviews, as if we were writing journal peer reviews, of 12 consecutive articles related to tobacco harm reduction topics published in a mainstream public health journal, BMC Public Health, from 2012 to 2015. We then compared these to the reviews written by the journal’s reviewers. Additionally, we reviewed the changes made to the papers as a result of the journal reviews. Results: Almost all the papers in the dataset suffered from major flaws, most of which could have been corrected. None of these were corrected by the journal review process. In the single case where a journal reviewer identified many of the major flaws, the comments were basically ignored by the authors. Unreported conflict of interest was common among both authors and reviewers. Conclusions: The journal publishing process contributed very little value, compared to just circulating working papers, other than formatting and indexing. In public health, the phrase “according to a peer-reviewed journal article” seems to mean little more than “I read this somewhere.”

The Peer-Review Process for Articles in Iran's Scientific Journals

2011 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Abooyee Ardakan ◽  
Seyyed Ayatollah Mirzaie ◽  
Fatemeh Sheikhshoaei
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals

scholarly journals Improving the peer-review process and editorial quality: key errors escaping the review and editorial process in top scientific journals

PeerJ ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. e1670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoni Margalida ◽  
Mª Àngels Colomer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Temporal Trends ◽  
Progressive Increase ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Journal Impact

We apply a novel mistake index to assess trends in the proportion of corrections published between 1993 and 2014 inNature,Scienceand PNAS. The index revealed a progressive increase in the proportion of corrections published in these three high-quality journals. The index appears to be independent of the journal impact factor or the number of items published, as suggested by a comparative analyses among 16 top scientific journals of different impact factors and disciplines. A more detailed analysis suggests that the trend in the time-to-correction increased significantly over time and also differed among journals (Nature233 days;Science136 days; PNAS 232 days). A detailed review of 1,428 errors showed that 60% of corrections were related to figures, authors, references or results. According to the three categories established, 34.7% of the corrections were consideredmild, 47.7%moderateand 17.6%severe,also differing among journals. Errors occurring during the printing process were responsible for 5% of corrections inNature, 3% inScienceand 18% in PNAS. The measurement of the temporal trends in the quality of scientific manuscripts can assist editors and reviewers in identifying the most common mistakes, increasing the rigor of peer-review and improving the quality of published scientific manuscripts.

scholarly journals Peer reviewing made easy

2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 150-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neel Halder ◽  
Rosalind Ramsay ◽  
Peter Tyrer ◽  
Patricia Casey
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewing

SummaryPeer review in scientific journals has existed for over 200 years. This process is currently the accepted way of assessing scientific manuscripts prior to publication for most journals. Despite this, little has been written about the process of peer reviewing, with hardly anything specific to psychiatric journals. This article answers fundamental questions related to peer reviewing and includes practical tips to writing reviews. It will be helpful for those keen on improving their knowledge about the peer-review process. It will not only benefit those who are reviewers or thinking about becoming reviewers, but also authors, who can use the information to improve their chances of publication.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document