scholarly journals HortIM™: An Online Peer Review System for Horticultural Teaching and Extension Instructional Materials

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 138-143
Author(s):  
Michael A. Arnold ◽  
Mary H. Meyer ◽  
Tim Rhodus ◽  
Susan S. Barton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Instructional Materials ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Instructional Videos ◽  
American Society ◽  
Excellence In Science ◽  
Teaching Modules

Based on a survey of the American Society for Horticultural Science (ASHS), membership need was identified for an online peer review system to validate innovation and recognize excellence in science-based teaching and extension scholarship for promotion and tenure purposes. This system would also provide a clearinghouse for instructional materials of merit for use in classrooms, laboratories, and outreach education, which fall outside the parameters of the three academic journals of ASHS. It was determined HortTechnology already provided a valued outlet for peer review of manuscript style teaching and extension scholarship; however, a need was identified for a mechanism to provide peer review of instructional materials which did not conform to a traditional manuscript format. Herein we describe the process that led to the development and launch of HortIM™, a new peer review system for teaching and extension instructional materials. An online peer review process for juried assessment of instructional materials such as articles, bulletins, case studies, fact sheets, instructional videos, teaching modules, and laboratory exercises was developed. A beta test of initial solicited materials in each category was piloted resulting in an initial database of these scholarly materials. This activity culminated in an initial opening of the system for submissions in Fall 2016. This article documents the development of HortIM™, including the submission and review process.

IMPROVING THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

2021 ◽  
pp. 82-83
Author(s):  
Oluwole Gbolagunte Ajao ◽  
Adekola Alao
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Administrative Positions ◽  
Selection Of

SUMMARY: The peer review process has been regarded as an essential part of accepting or rejecting a paper for publication since 1752 when the process was started by The Royal Society of London in the publication entitled “Philosophical Transactions”. In developing countries, one of the primary reasons for submitting pieces for publication is to support promotion in universities. In fact, the argument can be made that the only reason for publishing in developing countries is for faculty promotion. Despite the peer review process being standard practice for scientic journals, many of the research publications on COVID-19 were not subjected to the peer review system. In fact, numerous publications were pre-prints and papers shared by researchers online which were not peer reviewed, yet they were accepted and published by scientic journals in developing nations. When authors start to lose condence in the peer review process of a journal, they are not likely to submit their research work to such journals and this can lead to a diminished impact and reputation of such journals. Additionally, the selection of the assessors by the Editor-in -Chief is usually from the academic space of the editor and from the colleagues of the editor that usually share the editor's view. Contrary to what some editors in the developing countries believe, medical and academic administrative positions do not necessarily result in expertise in the peer review process. An editor can easily identify a poor assessment of an article, from the vitriolic feed-back of the author to the editor about an assessor when a paper is not recommended for publication. This paper provides evidence of and outlines the possible reasons that the peer review process is substandard in developing countries.

scholarly journals How Many Papers Should Scientists Be Reviewing? An Analysis Using Verified Peer Review Reports

Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
Vincent Raoult
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Research Fields ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Minimum Number ◽  
Review Reports

The current peer review system is under stress from ever increasing numbers of publications, the proliferation of open-access journals and an apparent difficulty in obtaining high-quality reviews in due time. At its core, this issue may be caused by scientists insufficiently prioritising reviewing. Perhaps this low prioritisation is due to a lack of understanding on how many reviews need to be conducted by researchers to balance the peer review process. I obtained verified peer review data from 142 journals across 12 research fields, for a total of over 300,000 reviews and over 100,000 publications, to determine an estimate of the numbers of reviews required per publication per field. I then used this value in relation to the mean numbers of authors per publication per field to highlight a ‘review ratio’: the expected minimum number of publications an author in their field should review to balance their input (publications) into the peer review process. On average, 3.49 ± 1.45 (SD) reviews were required for each scientific publication, and the estimated review ratio across all fields was 0.74 ± 0.46 (SD) reviews per paper published per author. Since these are conservative estimates, I recommend scientists aim to conduct at least one review per publication they produce. This should ensure that the peer review system continues to function as intended.

scholarly journals Peer Review system: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-23
Author(s):  
Shamima Parvin Lasker
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
The People ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity

Peer review process helps in evaluating and validating of research that is published in the journals. U.S. Office of Research Integrity reported that data fraudulence was found to be involved in 94% cases of misconduct from 228 identified articles between 1994–2012. If fraud in published article are significantly as high as reported, the question arise in mind, were these articles peer reviewed?  Another report said that the reviewers failed to detect 16 cases of fabricated article of Jan Hendrick Schon. Superficial peer reviewing process does not reveals suspicion of misconduct. Lack of knowledge of systemic review process not only demolish the academic integrity in publication but also loss the trust of the people of the institution, the nation, and the world. The aim of this review article is to aware stakeholders specially novice reviewers about the peer review system. Beginners will understand how to review an article and they can justify better action choices in dealing with reviewing an article.

scholarly journals The saga of the peer review process: author’s perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayank Agrawal ◽  
Suhani Suhani
Keyword(s):  
Time Delay ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Review System ◽  
Whole Process

AbstractPeer review system is the cornerstone of scientific publishing. The indented process is not as tedious as it has become, mainly due to the time delay, unavailability of expert reviewers, and the callous attitude of some. While there have been articles explaining the whole process and expressing the editor’s viewpoints on the peer review system, we wish to present the author’s perspective on this system.

scholarly journals Editor's Welcome

KIMIKA ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Florecita De Guzman
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Laboratory Experiments ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Undergraduate Research ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Instructional Materials ◽  
Primary Research ◽  
On Line ◽  
Industry Trends

Warmest welcome to our dear colleagues!We reintroduce you to KIMIKA, the Philippine journal for the chemical sciences. KIMIKA has taken a new look, and has reworked its focus to better reflect the research, industrial and academic efforts of chemistry practitioners in the country. We have expanded KIMIKA’s scope to include papers dealing with primary research results, scientific reviews, rapid communications, innovations in teaching, technical commentaries, instructional materials, novel laboratory experiments, industry trends, and policy papers. In succeeding issues, we also plan to have a section that features outstanding undergraduate research efforts.KIMIKA is now published by the Philippine Federation of Chemical Societies, and we hope that our expanded coverage will draw a wider base of readers and contributors of publishable material. To save printing costs and better manage our financial limitations, we have done away with paper copies and have adopted the open source, on-line format. A happy consequence of this is that submissions can be emailed anytime. Papers received will be subjected to peer review, and if accepted, will be copy-edited and uploaded immediately for on-line publication.We invite you to publish your work in KIMIKA. Rest assured that all papers published in KIMIKA are subjected to a peer review process that ensures the quality of published work.May we also take this opportunity to invite you to our workshop on scientific writing during the 28th Philippine Chemistry Congress in 2013?

An Independent Peer Review Process Developed by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers for the U.S. Department of Energy

Technology ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles O. Velzy ◽  
Ernest L. Daman ◽  
Nathan H. Hurt ◽  
Anibal L. Taboas ◽  
Yvette Collazo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Department Of Energy ◽  
American Society ◽  
The U.S

Student Perceptions of the Peer Review Process in Student Writing Projects

1997 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark G. Simkin ◽  
Nari K. Ramarapu
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Student Perceptions ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Total Quality ◽  
Review System ◽  
Student Views ◽  
Term Papers ◽  
High Degree

The process of academic peer review—i.e., students evaluating each other's work—can help instructors address a host of higher institutional objectives, not the least of which is the total quality management of collegiate teaching. But more is known about this process from the viewpoint of instructors than from the perspective of students. The purpose of this study was to formally examine student views of a specific peer-review system in which undergraduates assigned final grades to each other's term papers. A survey instrument revealed a high degree of comfort with the process, as well as some insights into why a few students were uncomfortable with it.

scholarly journals Development of an open peer review system using blockchain and reviewer recommendation technologies

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-111
Author(s):  
Dong-Hoon Choi ◽  
Tae-Sul Seo
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Communication Model ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Blockchain Technology ◽  
Data Interchange ◽  
Academic Communication

In order to create a transparent and sound academic communication ecosystem centered on researchers, we developed a system that applied blockchain technology to an open peer review system. In this study, an open peer review system was developed based on Hyperledger Fabric, which is a private blockchain. The system can be operated in connection with the reviewer recommendation module of the existing submission management system. In the reviewer recommendation module, reviewers are recommended by excluding co-authors and colleagues after an expertise test. The blockchain system performs an open peer review process based on smart contracts, while the submission management system selects reviewers for peer review. A service broker intervenes between these two systems for data interchange. The system developed herein is expected to be used as a researcher-centered scholarly communication model in the open science era, in which the intervention of publishers is minimized, and authors and reviewers (as researchers) are centered.

scholarly journals The role and significance of peer-review in Russian and foreign library and information science journals: a comparative analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
V.  N. Gureyev ◽  
N.  A. Mazov
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Review System ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Peer Reviewers

The paper summarizes experience of the authors as peer-reviewers of more than 100 manuscripts in twelve Russian and foreign academic journals on Library and Information Science in the last seven years. Prepared peer-reviews were used for making a list of the most usual critical and special comments for each manuscript that were subsequently structured for the conducted analyzes. Typical issues accompanying the peer-review process are shown. Significant differences between the results of peer-review in Russian and foreign journals are detected: although the initial quality of newly submitted manuscripts is approximately equal, the final published versions in foreign journals addressed all critical and the majority of minor reviewers’ comments, while in Russian journals more than one third of final versions were published with critical gaps. We conclude about low interest in high quality peer reviews among both authors and editors-in-chief in Russian journals. Despite the limitations of the samples, the obtained findings can be useful when evaluating the current peer-review system in Russian academic journals on Library and Information Science.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document