scholarly journals Editorial - Welcoming the first European peer review scientific journal created for and curated by school students

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Aliki Giannakopoulou
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
School Students

.

scholarly journals Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Resnik ◽  
Christina Gutierrez-Ford ◽  
Shyamal Peddada
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Ethical Problems

scholarly journals Turkish Vocational School Students’ Perception of 5E Teaching Model

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
pp. 221
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Yasar Kazu ◽  
Emine Bozu
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Classroom Environment ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Vocational School ◽  
Teaching Model ◽  
Constructivist Approach ◽  
School Students ◽  
Academic Year ◽  
Question Survey

This purpose of this study is to determine perception of students about implementation of 5E teaching model, one of the applications of constructivist approach in classroom environment, in vocational schools. For this purpose a 32-question survey was administered. 631 students were surveyed, including 227 male, 404 female studentsof 13 different programmes in Tunceli Vocational School of Tunceli University during the 2011-2012 academic year. Average, t-test, standard deviation, frequency and percentage distribution were used for the analysis of the research data. According to the results of the study, significant variations by gender were detected in 6 items, including “Supporting learning by revealing pre-knowledge”, “Defining the wrong points in the developed hypotheses ”, “Considering as unnecessary the instructor’s encouragement tolearn”, “Listening to the explanations of my friends”, “Giving opportunity for peer-review among students” and “Giving answers to questions with admissible evidences”. Affirming with their replies, the students revealed the applicability of the model. However further studies are necessary to see the implementation of the phases of the 5E model respectively, and it is considered that different researches should be performed with the purpose ofobserving that necessarypre-learning for each phase has been carried out.

scholarly journals Eyes wide open: reader and author responsibility in understanding the limits of peer review

2015 ◽  
Vol 97 (7) ◽  
pp. 487-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
PJ Benson
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Public Library ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Review Journal ◽  
Peer Review Journal

‘Medical science can only flourish in a free society and dies under totalitarian repression.’ 1 Peer review post-publication is relatively easy to define: when the world decides the importance of publication. Peer review pre-publication is what the scientific community frequently means when using the term ‘peer review’. But what it is it? Few will agree on an exact definition; generally speaking, it refers to an independent, third party scrutiny of a manuscript by scientific experts (called peers) who advise on its suitability for publication. Peer review is expensive; although reviewers are unpaid, the cost in time is enormous and it is slow. There is often little agreement among reviewers about whether an article should be published and peer review can be a lottery. Often referred to as a quality assurance process, there are many examples of when peer review failed. Many will be aware of Woo-Suk Hwang’s shocking stem cell research misconduct at Seoul National University. 2 Science famously published two breakthrough articles that were found subsequently to be completely fabricated and this happened in spite of peer review. Science is not unique in making this error. However, love it or hate it, peer review, for the present time at least, is here to stay. In this article, Philippa Benson, Managing Editor of Science Advances (the first open access journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), discusses the merits of peer review. Dr Benson has extensive experience in the publishing world and was Executive Director of PJB Consulting, a not-for-profit organisation supporting clients on issues related to converting to full electronic publishing workflows as well as challenges working with international authors and publishers. Her clients included the Public Library of Science journals, the American Society for Nutrition and the de Beaumont Foundation. She recently co-authored a book, What Editors Want: An Author’s Guide to Scientific Journal Publishing (University of Chicago Press), which helps readers understand and navigate the publishing process in high impact science and technical journals. Her master’s and doctorate degrees are from Carnegie Mellon University. JYOTI SHAH Commissioning Editor References 1. Eaton KK . Editorial: when is a peer review journal not a peer review journal? J Nutr Environ Med 1997 ; 7 : 139 – 144 . 2. van der Heyden MA , van de Ven T , Opthof T . Fraud and misconduct in science: the stem cell seduction . Neth Heart J 2009 ; 17 : 25 – 29 .

scholarly journals Dear Editor, why have you rejected my article?

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (10) ◽  
pp. 313-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Pimm
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Academic Career ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
The Subject

SummaryThe experience of rejection of an article submitted for publication to a scientific journal can be particularly anxiety provoking, especially when the furtherance of an academic career or the gaining of a permanent post might be riding on getting it published. Many papers fail to get past the first hurdle and are not sent out for peer review, often as a result of the most basic of errors: the results are not generalisable, the paper adds nothing new to the subject, there are flaws in the study design or inappropriate statistics were used. Attention paid to formulating a clear research question and the adoption at the outset of a doable, interesting project will often help to avoid disappointment.

An international peer-review system for a Chinese scientific journal

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhang Yuehong Helen ◽  
Yuan Yachun ◽  
Jiang Yufei
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System

scholarly journals Rejection rate and reasons for rejection after peer review: a case study of a Russian economics journal

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evgueniya A Balyakina ◽  
Ludmila A Kriventsova
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Rejection Rate ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Review Reports

 Background:  Peer review remains the only way of filtering and improving research. However, there are few studies of peer review based on the contents of review reports, because access to these reports is limited. Objectives: To measure the rejection rate and to investigate the reasons for rejection after peer-review in a specialized scientific journal.  Methods:  We considered the manuscripts submitted to a Russian journal, namely ‘Economy of Region’ (Rus Экономика региона), from 2016 to 2018, and analysed the double-blind review reports related to rejected submissions in qualitative and quantitative terms including descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 1653 submissions from 2016 to 2018, 324 (20%) were published, giving an average rejection rate of 80%. Content analysis of reviewer reports showed five categories of shortcomings in the manuscripts: breaches of publication ethics, mismatch with the journal’s research area, weak research reporting (a major group, which accounted for 66%of the total); lack of novelty, and design errors. We identified two major problems in the peer-review process that require editorial correction: in 36% of the cases, the authors did not send the revised version of the manuscript to the journal after receiving editorial comments and in 30% of the cases, the reviewers made contradictory recommendations. Conclusions: To obtain a more balanced evaluation from experts and to avoid paper losses the editorial team should revise the journal’s instructions to authors, its guide to reviewers, and the form of the reviewer’s report by indicating the weightings assigned to the different criteria and by describing in detail the criteria for a good paper.

scholarly journals Peer Review and JEPHC

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Archer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Web Site ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Product Reviews ◽  
Essential Requirement

n essential requirement of a profession's scientific journal is an effective and transparent process of peer review. With the exception of editorials, book and web site reviews, ACAP Updates, product reviews, conference reports and profiles, all articles offered to JEPHC are peer reviewed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document