Publish or Perish: Five Steps to Navigating a Less Painful Peer Review

Endocrinology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 162 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol A Lange ◽  
Stephen R Hammes
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Target Audience ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Principal Points ◽  
Molecular Endocrinology

Abstract This Perspective presents comments intended for junior researchers by Carol A. Lange, Editor-in-Chief, Endocrinology, and Stephen R. Hammes, former Editor-in-Chief, Molecular Endocrinology, and former co-Editor-in-Chief, Endocrinology. Principal points 1. Know when you are ready and identify your target audience. 2. Select an appropriate journal. 3. Craft your title and abstract to capture your key words and deliver your message. 4. Tell a clear and impactful story. 5. Review, polish, and perfect your manuscript.

Assumed Differences; Unquestioned Typologies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Tallman ◽  
Nicolette Parr ◽  
Allysha Winburn
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Forensic Anthropology ◽  
Biological Variation ◽  
Population Variation ◽  
Biological Profile ◽  
Social Inequity ◽  
Population Affinity ◽  
Do So

Forensic anthropologists traditionally estimate “race” or “ancestry” as part of the biological profile. While practitioners may have changed the terms used to describe regionally patterned human skeletal variation, the degree to which they have altered their typological approaches remains unclear. This study analyzed 119 peer-reviewed forensic anthropology articles published in four relevant journals (1966–2020) by matching combination(s) of the key words “race,” “ancestry,” “ethnicity,” and/or “population affinity.” Results indicated that while “ancestry” has supplanted “race,” this change has not brought concurrent modifications in approach, nor deeper scrutiny of underlying concepts. “Race” and “ancestry” were infrequently defined in 13% and 12% of sampled articles, respectively, and a plethora of social, geographic, and pseudoscientific terms persisted. Forensic anthropologists increasingly engaged with questions addressing the forces patterning human biological variation: 65% of studies postdating 1999 discussed population histories/structures and microevolution; 38% between 1966–1999. Fewer studies contextualized or critiqued approaches to analyzing population variation (32% of studies postdating 1999; 4% from 1966–1999), and virtually no studies considered the possibility that skeletal variation reflected embodied social inequity (5% of studies postdating 1999; 0% from 1966–1999). This lack of interrogation and clarity contributes to the faulty notion that all forensic anthropologists share similar definitions and leads to an oversimplification of complex biocultural processes. While the lack ofdefinitions and biocultural engagement may be partly due to editorial and peer-review pressures, it is likely that many forensic anthropologists have not interrogated their own perspectives. This article holds that it is essential for us to do so.

scholarly journals Publish-and-Flourish: Using Blockchain Platform to Enable Cooperative Scholarly Communication

Publications ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Emilija Stojmenova Duh ◽  
Andrej Duh ◽  
Uroš Droftina ◽  
Tim Kos ◽  
Urban Duh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
User Behavior ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Cooperative Behavior ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Research Paper ◽  
Strategic Games ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Smart Contract

Scholarly communication is today immersed in publish-or-perish culture that propels non-cooperative behavior in the sense of strategic games played by researchers. Here we introduce and describe a blockchain based platform for decentralized scholarly communication. The design of the platform rests on community driven publishing reviewing processes and implements cryptoeconomic incentives that promote cooperative user behavior. The key to achieve cooperation in blockchain based scholarly communication is to transform today’s static research paper into a modifiable research paper under continuous peer review process. We introduce and discuss the implementation of a modifiable research paper as a smart contract on the blockchain.

scholarly journals PENGARUH KOMPETENSI DAN INDEPENDENSI AUDITOR TERHADAP KUALITAS AUDIT

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Ririn Arianti
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Significant Influence ◽  
Formal Education ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Auditor Tenure ◽  
Independent Variable ◽  
Nonaudit Services

<p class="Style1">The purpose of this study to determinde the effect of competence and independence on audit quality. The variables which used in this research are competence and independence as a independent variable, and audit quality as a dependent variable. Competence is measured by knowledge, experience, and formal education, while independence is measured by auditor tenure, pressure from clients, peer review and nonaudit services. The results show that competence significantly influence on audit quality but independence has not significant influence on audit quality.</p><p class="Style2">Key words: Competence, Independence and Audit Quality</p>

scholarly journals Choosing the scientific journal for publishing research work: perceptions of medical and dental researchers

2017 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nagarajappa Sandesh ◽  
Shilpa Wahrekar
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Publishing House ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Rejection Rate ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Online Submission

Background and aim. With the increasing demand to publish due to ‘publish or perish’ culture among research and academic institutions, the choice of a journal for publishing scientific articles becomes very important. A publication with many citations and high impact factor can propel researchers in their academic careers. The aim of this study is to explore the perceptions of medical and dental researchers in India about the important criteria to consider while selecting scientific journals for publishing their research.Methods. 206 faculty staff members from three medical and five dental institutions were selected through convenience sampling. The study participants completed a questionnaire with 24 closed ended questions on various factors related to journal selection for publication. Factors such as publication frequency, journal citation, indexing, peer-review, impact factor, publication fees, acceptance or rejection rate, publishing house, previous submission and online submission process were considered. The responses were recorded using a Likert scale. Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency or homogeneity was 0.909. Descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney U test were employed for comparison of responses among study participants.Results. The mean weight of 24 criteria on a scale of 0 to 4 varied between 2.13 and 3.45. The results showed that indexing of journal (3.45±0.74), online submission (3.24±0.83), impact factor (3.11±0.91), peer-review process (3.0±1.02) and publication fees (2.99±1.11) were among the most important criteria to consider in journal selection.Conclusions Of the 24 factors considered by health researchers for journal selection, the most important were Journal indexing, online submission, impact factor, peer-review and publication fees. Compared to dental researchers, medical researchers perceived open access and peer-review process as significantly more important criteria.

Un ranking internazionale per le riviste di storia

2009 ◽  
pp. 17-42
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
European Science Foundation ◽  
European Science ◽  
History Of ◽  
Reference Index ◽  
The Web ◽  
Initial List

- The history of the initiative of the European Science Foundation (Esf) to create a European Reference Index for the Humanities (Erih), intended to replace peer review by metrics, is reconstructed, with an analysis of the multiple limitations, distortions and negative consequences, that are apparent in the initial list, rendered public on the web in 2007. This followed by three case studies, of this followed by accounts of the highly negative responses to the initiative of the research communities and funding bodies in Germany, France and England.Key words: Ranking, History journals, Erih, Humanities, Peer Review.Parole chiave: Ranking, riviste di storia, Erih, Scienze umane, Peer Review.

Publish or Perish - Peer Review

2004 ◽  
Vol 52 (11) ◽  
pp. 1171-1171
Author(s):  
Jürgen Hinze
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Publish Or Perish

Measuring Research

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cassidy R. Sugimoto ◽  
Vincent Larivière
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Scholarly Output ◽  
Emerging Issues ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Impact

Policy makers, academic administrators, scholars, and members of the public are clamoring for indicators of the value and reach of research. The question of how to quantify the impact and importance of research and scholarly output, from the publication of books and journal articles to the indexing of citations and tweets, is a critical one in predicting innovation, and in deciding what sorts of research is supported and whom is hired to carry it out. There is a wide set of data and tools available for measuring research, but they are often used in crude ways, and each have their own limitations and internal logics. Measuring Research: What Everyone Needs to Know® will provide, for the first time, an accessible account of the methods used to gather and analyze data on research output and impact. Following a brief history of scholarly communication and its measurement — from traditional peer review to crowdsourced review on the social web — the book will look at the classification of knowledge and academic disciplines, the differences between citations and references, the role of peer review, national research evaluation exercises, the tools used to measure research, the many different types of measurement indicators, and how to measure interdisciplinarity. The book also addresses emerging issues within scholarly communication, including whether or not measurement promotes a "publish or perish" culture, fraud in research, or "citation cartels." It will also look at the stakeholders behind these analytical tools, the adverse effects of these quantifications, and the future of research measurement.

scholarly journals Publish or Perish! Sharing Best practices for a Writing Instructor Led “Writing for Publication” Course

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Sarbani Sen Vengadasalam
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Writing For Publication ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Break Up ◽  
Writing Instructors ◽  
The Way

There is an urgent need to teach “Writing for Publications” classes to graduate and doctoral students. Though the debate about who should instruct such classes continues, the paper proffers best practices for writing instructors to use while teaching it. The paper highlights the need for scholar-participants to opt for modeling as a way to familiarize themselves with disciplinary and journal conventions. The paper expands on the way online peer review workshops could be conducted at milestone points in the semester to elevate and formalize peer reviews, so integral to the publication process. A sample syllabus with week-by-week activity break-up is offered.

Peer review

2019 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-298
Author(s):  
Martijn Kemerink
Keyword(s):  
Boundary Conditions ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Optimal Functioning ◽  
Quality Check ◽  
The Common

Summary Over the years, peer review has developed into one of the fundaments of science as a means to provide feedback on scientific output in a relatively objective manner. While peer review is done with the common good in mind, specifically to provide a quality check, a novelty and relevance check, fraud detection and general manuscript improvement, it has its weaknesses and faces threats that undermine both its effectiveness and even its goals. Herein, I address the role of the various actors in the peer reviewing process, the authors, the editors, the reviewers and the broader society. While the first three actors are active participants in the process, the role of society is indirect as it sets the boundary conditions for the process. I will argue that although authors, editors and reviewers all are in part to blame for the sub-optimal functioning of the system, it is the broader society that intentionally and unintentionally causes many of these problems by enforcing a publish-or-perish culture in academia.

scholarly journals Data Sharing and Research on Peer Review: A Call to Action

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Flaminio Squazzoni ◽  
Ana Marusic ◽  
Marco Seeber ◽  
Bahar Menhami ◽  
Michael Willis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Call To Action ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Learned Societies ◽  
Protection Legislation ◽  
Set Up

While recent surveys show that most stakeholders recognise the importance of peer review to the publication process, there is a lack of systematic research on the topic. In a period of hyper-competition for resources, with perverse incentives that lead to academic capitalism and a “publish or perish” mentality, the lack of robust and cumulative research on approaches, models and practices of peer review can slow down efforts towards fostering research integrity and the credibility of scholarly communication. A major challenge in studying peer review systematically is the lack of available data. While data sharing in scientific research has made relevant progress in certain fields, the lack of infrastructures to promote the sharing of peer review data among publishers, journals and academic scholars, the challenges posed by privacy and data protection legislation, and the perceived lack of incentives for publishers, learned societies and journals to share data, have all hampered efforts in this important domain. While public authorities, learned societies and publishers may face different priorities, incentives and obstacles regarding data sharing, the time has come to call to action all stakeholders who play a part in this field. In this paper, we argue that an infrastructure for data sharing is needed to stimulate independent, collaborative, public research on peer review and we suggest measures and initiatives to set up a collaborative effort towards this goal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document