scholarly journals Peer review in high-energy physics: a return to the origins?

2003 ◽  
Vol 02 (03) ◽  
pp. F04
Author(s):  
Marco Fabbrichesi

I still remember very clearly my first encounter with peer review: I was a Ph. D. student in physics and I had written my first paper, submitted it to a journal and - after what seemed to me a very long time - received a reply with the request for few changes and corrections I was supposed to include in my paper before it could be considered for publication. These very simple steps: the writing up of some original research results in a paper, its submission to a journal and the process of the work being read and judged by someone reputed to be an expert in the field is what we call peer review - the judging of scientific work by your peers - and it is an essential part of what science is. No scientific achievement can be considered as such until has been recognized by the community at large and such a recognition mainly comes from the peer review process. The presence of this check has arguably helped and fostered the constant and cumulative growth of science.

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-100
Author(s):  
Devlin V Smith ◽  
Laura B Stokes ◽  
Kayleigh Marx ◽  
Samuel L Aitken

For pharmacists, the first years after graduation are spent developing their knowledge base, advancing as a practitioner, and honing their abilities as healthcare providers and drug information experts. New practitioners encounter many challenges during this time, which for many include publishing original research or reviewing manuscripts for colleagues and medical journals. Inexperience navigating the publication process, from submission to receipt of (and response to) peer review commentary, is often cited as a major barrier to timely publication of resident and new practitioner research. Serving as a peer reviewer in turn provides the new practitioner with insight on this process and can be an enlightening experience used to garner confidence in subsequently submitting their own formal manuscripts. A number of publications describing steps for peer review are available, however, many of these articles address more experienced reviewers or critique the peer review process itself. No definitive resource exists for new pharmacy practitioners interested in developing their peer review skills. The information presented in this summative guide should be used in conjunction with practice opportunities to help new practitioners develop proficiency at peer review.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Silvia Pereira Santos ◽  
◽  
Daniele Maia Bila ◽  
Emanuel Manfred Freire Brandt ◽  
Juacyara Carbonelli Campos ◽  
...  

Publishing a scientific article is not a simple task. You may ultimately have to publish a paper to either take scientific grants or take a Ph.D. or master's degree, so it is to your advantage to keep all the necessary steps in your hands. First and foremost, when you are asked to write such a paper, it is essential to organize your ideas in a way that is convenient for submitting a manuscript for consideration in an appropriate journal. Everyone who has submitted a manuscript in a scientific journal has had the frustrating experience of spending a long time writing the manuscript and waiting for the journal feedback, only to discover at the end that your article is not good enough for publication in that journal. Therefore, the task wouldn't end if the manuscript weren't accepted for publication, following a long peer-review process. However, you have no idea how to be successful in publishing your article? Calm down! There are several reasons for using this guide. This work was designed exactly to help you, casually, but with much content. All the authors' experience is shared here, with tips and recommendations to save you from frequent mistakes and lead you to the fastest and most assertive path. Not only have you the charge of contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge, but also to publish your research with responsibility. Publishing your article will not be easy, but it would be nice and less complicated if you came with us to build it up.


2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 112-116
Author(s):  
Vitaly S. Pronskikh ◽  

The article provides a brief overview of the philosophical and methodological problems of modern collaborative research. Collaborations – distributed organizations with variable membership, consisting of a large number (sometimes several thousand) of participants – are common in experimental high-energy physics studying microcosm objects, elementary particles arising in collisions of beams of accelerated particles and nuclei at collider accelerators, as well as in biomedicine and climatology. The central issues are authorship, epistemic ownership and dependence in collaborations, the division of epistemic labor in interdisciplinary research, as well as related issues of scientific organization – peer review and distribution of credit in a team. Formally, the author, conceived as a list of persons appearing as authors of a collaborative scientific work, seems to be defined by the specific participants of the collaboration core, i.e., is a construct. However, the question can also be understood as “What does it mean to be the author of a scientific work?”, and then the answer becomes much less certain. Authorship of thousand-people articles is justified psychologically as the desire for regular performance of a ritual, which allows demonstrating joint belonging to a certain tradition, such as a long experiment, affiliation with the “workshop” of scientists studying phenomena of the microworld, which allows scientists, despite of their daily preoccupation with technical routines, to distinguish themselves from non-epistemic communities (engineers, technicians). However, specific rules that determine exactly who and why are worthy of being included as co-authors have been undergoing changes in recent years. In addition to theoretical significance, many of the problems discussed are related to actual practical issues of scientometry and the organization of scientific research, and therefore approaches to their solution can be directly embodied in scientific policy.


2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Y. Moon ◽  
Shannon Reidt ◽  
Megan Undeberg ◽  
Anne Schullo-Feulner

Objectives: To describe the evolving process and evaluate the perceived value of peer review for clinical faculty. Methods: Using a 5-point Likert scale, clinical faculty rated the value of an electronic peer review process by completing an electronic 30 item survey across six areas of clinical faculty practice-related activity. Based on feedback, modifications were made and faculty were re-surveyed the following year. Results: Initially, 78% of faculty found peer review to be beneficial, mostly in the area of practice development and portions of practice dissemination. After modifications, 45% found peer review to be beneficial. Conclusions: Clinical faculty are challenged to leverage their practice into teaching and scholarly activities; however, clinical faculty often need feedback to accomplish this. Although the peer review process was designed to address perceived needs of clinical faculty, the process is dynamic and needs further refinement. Overall, clinical faculty find value in a peer review process. This evaluation of peer review illustrates the challenges to provide feedback across six key areas of clinical faculty activity.   Type: Original Research


2010 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sagar Dugani ◽  
Stephan Ong Tone

The Clinician Investigator Trainee Association of Canada – Association des cliniciens-chercheurs en formation du Canada (CITAC-ACCFC) is a national organization composed of MD+ trainees enrolled in MD/MSc, MD/PhD, and Clinician Investigator Programs (CIP) across Canada. In less than three years since its conception, CITAC-ACCFC has become an established organization with over 200 members from fifteen academic institutions. The mission of the CITAC-ACCFC is to organize and promote activities that support clinician investigator trainees in Canada, with the intention to improve academic and post-graduate career opportunities, expand institutional and public awareness of clinician investigator programs, and develop a nationally accessible information database of student and program development. The CITAC-ACCFC aims to improve the early-career conditions of clinician investigators in order to expand and advance innovative research initiatives within Canada. Throughout its development, CITAC-ACCFC has relied on the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation (CSCI) for mentorship and guidance. In an exciting development, the relationship between CITAC-ACCFC and CSCI has enabled an innovative opportunity for early career development through a new collaboration- the creation of a Trainee Section in the Clinical and Investigative Medicine (CIM) journal. As a forum through which work on diverse topics can be shared with the global community, the CIM Trainee Section will create unique opportunities for professional development. Trainees in MD+ programs represent the next generation of clinical-investigators, who will integrate cutting edge research and compassionate patient care throughout their careers. Both professions require excellent communication skills, and through the Trainee Section, MD+ trainees, their supervisors, and MD+ Program Directors, will be able to focus on mentorship, academic training, financial planning, and career development, among other topics devoted to MD+ trainees. In addition to articles highlighting the research activities of trainees, the Trainee Section will feature clinical work, review articles, first chapter of theses, book reviews, and opinion pieces. This focus of the Trainee Section will complement CIM’s current focus on original research and issues of interest to the CSCI. It is therefore fitting to establish a Trainee Section that is dedicated to addressing issues arising at an earlier stage of training. As MD+ organizations are being established globally, the Trainee Section will strive to become an international forum that focuses on MD+ training. By increasing the international readership of CIM through the CITAC website, we will aim to engage MD+ trainees, program directors, university administration, and other leaders in education, to advocate for issues of national and global relevance. As trainees will be responsible for overseeing the editorial and peer-review process of the Trainee Section, we anticipate that this will provide an avenue by which to foster stronger interactions and collaborations among trainees on our Editorial Board, junior investigators, and senior faculty, while providing critical editorial experience for board members. Our team of Editors will ensure that articles are reviewed in a fair and timely manner, respecting the need to promptly publish articles of immediate relevance. We encourage all MD+ trainees to participate in the Trainee Section editorial and/or peer-review process. Additional details can be found on our website at: http://www.citac-accfc.org/portal/ As MD+ trainees, we are optimistic about the future of both basic science and clinical research. This is an exciting time to be an MD+ trainee, and we are confident that the creation of a Trainee Section will only augment this positive experience. We strongly encourage you to publish your work in the Trainee Section and become part of an emerging global community of MD+ trainees, who are keen on tackling health issues that affect us irrespective of our geographic, cultural, or racial borders. We look forward to receiving your articles.


2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-107
Author(s):  
Sandipan Sikdar ◽  
Paras Tehria ◽  
Matteo Marsili ◽  
Niloy Ganguly ◽  
Animesh Mukherjee

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document