scholarly journals AN OVERVIEW ON CURRENT REGULATION AND EVALUATION OF BIOCIDAL PRODUCTS

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aslı ŞAHİNER ◽  
Evren ALGIN YAPAR
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Chemical Substance ◽  
Biological Action ◽  
Insect Repellents ◽  
Biocidal Products ◽  
Unique System ◽  
Natural Oil ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
E Mail ◽  
Biocidal Product

A biocidal product is a substance or mixture prepared to limit, destroy, neutralize or control the effects of a harmful microorganism, plants and animals. The active substance in a biocidal product can be a natural oil or extract, a chemical substance or a microorganism, virus or fungus. Biocides consist of four main groups: disinfectants, preservatives (wood, paint, etc.), pest control and other type of biocidal products. A biocidal substance can also be added to a product to make the product itself into a biocidal product. These products range from disinfectants, hand sanitizers, preservatives, insect repellents, to rodenticides and insecticides and are used to protect humans, animals, materials and articles by controlling the intended target organism by a chemical or biological action. To make sure the use of biocidal products do not have unacceptable risks for people, animals and the environment, they are regulated to control their marketing, sale and use. In the current study biocidal products have been overviewed in the scope of current European Union regulations, product types and conformity tests. Peer Review History: UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency. Received file Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 5.0/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 7.0/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Name: Dr. Barkat Ali Khan Affiliation: Kampala International University , Uganda E-mail: [email protected]   Name: Dr. Sally A. El-Zahaby Affiliation: Pharos University in Alexandria, Egypt E-mail: [email protected] Comments of reviewer(s):

scholarly journals FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF PHARMACEUTICALY STABLE SERUM OF DUCHESNEA INDICA (ARBENAN)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Mumtihanah Mursyid ◽  
Risda Waris
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Leaf Extract ◽  
Ethanolic Extract ◽  
Ethanol Extract ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
Unique System ◽  
Duchesnea Indica ◽  
Leaf Powder ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Stable Leaf

Objective: Arbenan (Duchesnea indica) plants contain saponins, flavonoids, and tannins which have antioxidant activity. The purpose of this research is to perform formulation and evaluation extract ethanol of Arbenan leaves in the form of serum which is pharmaceutically stable. Method: Arbenan leaf powder was macerated with ethanol solvent, and then left for 3-4 days while stirring repeatedly, and then filtering. Furthermore, the liquid ethanol extract that has been obtained is evaporated using a Rotary Vacum Evaporator was used to evaporate the extract. Prepared extract was used to evaluate various parameters like organoleptics, homogeneity, viscosity, and pH. Result: All formulations were having typical smell, light brown color and a little thick consistency. Formulations of leaf extract of Arabenan with four variations bases have shown to have good stability after stress condition. It can be seen from the evaluation result are organoleptics, homogeneity, viscosity, rheology, and pH. Conclusion: Study concludes that a stable leaf extract of Arabenan can be effectively formulated into a serum by the means of various bases.                                     Peer Review History: Received 8 January 2021; Revised 13 February; Accepted 4 March, Available online 15 March 2021 UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency.  Received file:                Reviewer's Comments: Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 5.0/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 7.0/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Dr. Marwa A. A. Fayed,  University of Sadat City, Egypt, [email protected] Prof. Dr. Ali Gamal Ahmed Al-kaf,  Sana'a university, Yemen, [email protected] Ahmad Najib, Universitas Muslim Indonesia, Makassar, Indonesia, [email protected] Similar Articles: PHYTOCHEMICAL, ANTI-INFLAMMATORY, ANALGESIC, ANTIPYRETIC AND ACUTE TOXICITY OF PSIADIA PUNCTULATA GROWING IN YEMEN ANTIHYPERLIPIDEMIC EFFECT OF THE ETHANOLIC EXTRACT OF SCAEVOLA TACCADA (GAERTN) ROXB. LEAVES ETHNOBOTANY, PHYTOCHEMISTRY AND PHARMACOLOGY OF OCHNA SCHWEINFURTHIANA: A REVIEW

scholarly journals No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Serge P J M Horbach
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Scientific Enterprise ◽  
Considerable Impact ◽  
Editorial Decision ◽  
Evaluation Mechanism ◽  
Reader Comments ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Review Model ◽  
Editorial Decisions

Abstract The global Covid-19 pandemic has had considerable impact on the scientific enterprise, including scholarly publication and peer review practices. Several studies have assessed these impacts, showing among others that medical journals have strongly accelerated their review processes for Covid-19 related content. This has raised questions and concerns regarding the quality of the review process and the standards to which manuscripts are held for publication. To address these questions, this study sets out to assess qualitative differences in review reports and editorial decision letters for Covid-19 related, articles not related to Covid-19 published during the 2020 pandemic, and articles published before the pandemic. It employs the open peer review model at the British Medical Journal and eLife to study the content of review reports, editorial decisions, author responses, and open reader comments. It finds no clear differences between review processes of articles not related to Covid-19 published during or before the pandemic. However, it does find notable diversity between Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 related articles, including fewer requests for additional experiments, more cooperative comments, and different suggestions to address too strong claims. In general, the findings suggest that both reviewers and journal editors implicitly and explicitly use different quality criteria to assess Covid-19 related manuscripts, hence transforming science’s main evaluation mechanism for their underlying studies and potentially affecting their public dissemination.

scholarly journals Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035604
Author(s):  
Cecilia Superchi ◽  
Darko Hren ◽  
David Blanco ◽  
Roser Rius ◽  
Alessandro Recchioni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Version ◽  
Report Quality ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Definition Of

ObjectiveTo develop a tool to assess the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research.MethodsWe conducted an online survey intended for biomedical editors and authors. The survey aimed to (1) determine if participants endorse the proposed definition of peer-review report quality; (2) identify the most important items to include in the final version of the tool and (3) identify any missing items. Participants rated on a 5-point scale whether an item should be included in the tool and they were also invited to comment on the importance and wording of each item. Principal component analysis was performed to examine items redundancy and a general inductive approach was used for qualitative data analysis.ResultsA total of 446 biomedical editors and authors participated in the survey. Participants were mainly male (65.9%), middle-aged (mean=50.3, SD=13) and with PhD degrees (56.4%). The majority of participants (84%) agreed on the definition of peer-review report quality we proposed. The 20 initial items included in the survey questionnaire were generally highly rated with a mean score ranging from 3.38 (SD=1.13) to 4.60 (SD=0.69) (scale 1–5). Participants suggested 13 items that were not included in the initial list of items. A steering committee composed of five members with different expertise discussed the selection of items to include in the final version of the tool. The final checklist includes 14 items encompassed in five domains (Importance of the study, Robustness of the study methods, Interpretation and discussion of the study results, Reporting and transparency of the manuscript, Characteristics of peer reviewer’s comments).ConclusionAssessment of Review reports with a Checklist Available to eDItors and Authors tool could be used regularly by editors to evaluate the reviewers’ work, and also as an outcome when evaluating interventions to improve the peer-review process.

scholarly journals Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science

2020 ◽  
Vol 125 (2) ◽  
pp. 1033-1051
Author(s):  
Dietmar Wolfram ◽  
Peiling Wang ◽  
Adam Hembree ◽  
Hyoungjoo Park
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Turn Of The Century ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Early Adopters ◽  
Steady Growth ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Science Movement ◽  
Different Levels

AbstractOpen peer review (OPR), where review reports and reviewers’ identities are published alongside the articles, represents one of the last aspects of the open science movement to be widely embraced, although its adoption has been growing since the turn of the century. This study provides the first comprehensive investigation of OPR adoption, its early adopters and the implementation approaches used. Current bibliographic databases do not systematically index OPR journals, nor do the OPR journals clearly state their policies on open identities and open reports. Using various methods, we identified 617 OPR journals that published at least one article with open identities or open reports as of 2019 and analyzed their wide-ranging implementations to derive emerging OPR practices. The findings suggest that: (1) there has been a steady growth in OPR adoption since 2001, when 38 journals initially adopted OPR, with more rapid growth since 2017; (2) OPR adoption is most prevalent in medical and scientific disciplines (79.9%); (3) five publishers are responsible for 81% of the identified OPR journals; (4) early adopter publishers have implemented OPR in different ways, resulting in different levels of transparency. Across the variations in OPR implementations, two important factors define the degree of transparency: open identities and open reports. Open identities may include reviewer names and affiliation as well as credentials; open reports may include timestamped review histories consisting of referee reports and author rebuttals or a letter from the editor integrating reviewers’ comments. When and where open reports can be accessed are also important factors indicating the OPR transparency level. Publishers of optional OPR journals should add metric data in their annual status reports.

scholarly journals Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula CABEZAS Del FIERRO ◽  
Omar SABAJ MERUANE ◽  
Germán VARAS ESPINOZA ◽  
Valeria GONZÁLEZ HERRERA
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Average Length ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Review Time ◽  
Feedback Quality ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract The value of scientific knowledge is highly dependent on the quality of the process used to produce it, namely, the quality of the peer-review process. This process is a pivotal part of science as it works both to legitimize and improve the work of the scientific community. In this context, the present study investigated the relationship between review time, length, and feedback quality of review reports in the peer-review process of research articles. For this purpose, the review time of 313 referee reports from three Chilean international journals were recorded. Feedback quality was determined estimating the rate of direct requests by the total number of comments in each report. Number of words was used to describe the average length in the sample. Results showed that average time and length have little variation across review reports, irrespective of their quality. Low quality reports tended to take longer to reach the editor, so neither time nor length were related to feedback quality. This suggests that referees mostly describe, criticize, or praise the content of the article instead of making useful and direct comments to help authors improve their manuscripts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document