The Peer-Review Process for Articles in Iran's Scientific Journals

2011 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Abooyee Ardakan ◽  
Seyyed Ayatollah Mirzaie ◽  
Fatemeh Sheikhshoaei
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals

Judges and defendants

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianfranco Pacchioni
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Contemporary Science ◽  
The Social ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Scientific Publishers

This chapter explores how validation of new results works in science. It also looks at the peer-review process, both pros and cons, as well as scientific communication, scientific journals, and scientific publishers. We give an assessment of the total number of existing journals with peer review. Other topics discussed include the phenomenon of open access, predatory journals and their impact on contemporary science, and the market of scientific publications. Finally, we touch on degenerative phenomena, such as the market of co-authors, bogus papers, and irrelevant and wrong studies, as well as the problem and the social cost of irreproducible results.

Stretched peer-review on unexpected results (GMOs)

2005 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 99-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.I. Myhr
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Unexpected Findings ◽  
Early Warnings

Science is the basis for governance of risk from genetically modified organisms (GMO), and it is also a primary source of legitimacy for policy decision. However, recently the publication of unexpected results has caused controversies and challenged the way in which science should be performed, be published in scientific journals, and how preliminary results should be communicated. These studies have subsequently, after being accepted for publication within the peer-review process of leading scientific journals, been thoroughly re-examined by many actors active within the GMO debate and thereby drawn extensive media coverage. The publicized charges that the research involved does not constitute significant evidence or represent bad science have in fact deflected attention away from the important questions related to ecological and health risks raised by the research. In this paper, I will argue that unexpected findings may represent “early warnings.” Although early warnings may not represent reality, such reports are necessary to inform other scientists and regulators, and should be followed up by further research to reveal the validity of the warnings. Furthermore, science that embraces robust, participatory and transparent approaches will be imperative in the future to reduce the present controversy surrounding GMO use and release.

scholarly journals The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Giordan ◽  
Attila Csikasz-Nagy ◽  
Andrew M. Collings ◽  
Federico Vaggi
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Decision Type ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Decision Times

BackgroundPublishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications.MethodsHere we examine an element of the editorial process ateLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions toeLifesince June 2012, of which 2,750 were sent for peer review, using R and Python to perform the statistical analysis.ResultsThe Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and 5 days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). There was no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates for published articles where the Reviewing Editor served as one of the peer reviewers.ConclusionsAn important aspect ofeLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.

scholarly journals The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Giordan ◽  
Attila Csikasz-Nagy ◽  
Andrew M. Collings ◽  
Federico Vaggi
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Decision Type ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Decision Times

BackgroundPublishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications.MethodsHere we examine an element of the editorial process ateLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions toeLifesince June 2012, of which 2,747 were sent for peer review. This subset of 2747 papers was then analysed in detail.  ResultsThe Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and five days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). Moreover, editors acting as reviewers had no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates.ConclusionsAn important aspect ofeLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.

scholarly journals Double Anonymity and the Peer Review Process

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1274-1277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J.C. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Important Method ◽  
Fields Of Study ◽  
Almost All

The process of peer review for submissions to scientific journals is a well-established and widely used procedure. Review by one's peers is a well-recognised and long-standing method of appraisal. Throughout all branches of science, medicine, humanities, art, literature, politics, sport, and in fact almost all areas of human endeavour, the judgement of work by an individual or group of experts in similar fields of study is the most rigorous and valuable form of recognition. “Peer review”, as this process is commonly known, is an important method of assuring quality, relevance and novelty of work. However, is there still room for improvement in the procedural aspects of peer review?

scholarly journals Improving the peer-review process and editorial quality: key errors escaping the review and editorial process in top scientific journals

PeerJ ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. e1670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoni Margalida ◽  
Mª Àngels Colomer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Temporal Trends ◽  
Progressive Increase ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Journal Impact

We apply a novel mistake index to assess trends in the proportion of corrections published between 1993 and 2014 inNature,Scienceand PNAS. The index revealed a progressive increase in the proportion of corrections published in these three high-quality journals. The index appears to be independent of the journal impact factor or the number of items published, as suggested by a comparative analyses among 16 top scientific journals of different impact factors and disciplines. A more detailed analysis suggests that the trend in the time-to-correction increased significantly over time and also differed among journals (Nature233 days;Science136 days; PNAS 232 days). A detailed review of 1,428 errors showed that 60% of corrections were related to figures, authors, references or results. According to the three categories established, 34.7% of the corrections were consideredmild, 47.7%moderateand 17.6%severe,also differing among journals. Errors occurring during the printing process were responsible for 5% of corrections inNature, 3% inScienceand 18% in PNAS. The measurement of the temporal trends in the quality of scientific manuscripts can assist editors and reviewers in identifying the most common mistakes, increasing the rigor of peer-review and improving the quality of published scientific manuscripts.

scholarly journals Peer reviewing made easy

2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 150-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neel Halder ◽  
Rosalind Ramsay ◽  
Peter Tyrer ◽  
Patricia Casey
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewing

SummaryPeer review in scientific journals has existed for over 200 years. This process is currently the accepted way of assessing scientific manuscripts prior to publication for most journals. Despite this, little has been written about the process of peer reviewing, with hardly anything specific to psychiatric journals. This article answers fundamental questions related to peer reviewing and includes practical tips to writing reviews. It will be helpful for those keen on improving their knowledge about the peer-review process. It will not only benefit those who are reviewers or thinking about becoming reviewers, but also authors, who can use the information to improve their chances of publication.

Why Participate in Peer Review as a Journal Manuscript Reviewer: What’s in It for You?

2016 ◽  
Vol 156 (6) ◽  
pp. 976-977 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen B. Pytynia
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Career Development ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Continuing Medical Education ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Critical Component ◽  
Education Credit

The peer review process for scientific journals relies on the efforts of volunteer reviewers. Reviewers are selected due to their expertise in their fields. With so many demands on professional time, the benefits of participating in peer review may not be obvious. However, reviewers benefit by exposure to the latest developments in their fields, facilitating their keeping up-to-date with the latest publications. Tenure committees look favorably on participation in peer review, and invitations to review underscore that the reviewer is a respected subject matter expert. Contacts made during the peer review process can lead to long-lasting collaboration. Continuing medical education credit can be obtained through various mechanisms. Overall, participating in peer review is an important part of career development and should be viewed as a critical component of advancement.

Reviewing/editing a manuscript for scientific publication

1998 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 377-382
Author(s):  
Calvin Chong
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Processing System ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
System A ◽  
Good Review ◽  
Scientific Results

The peer review process is the basis of evaluation or "quality control" in modern science. Peer review ensures publication of valid scientific results that are appropriately presented and interpreted. As scientists, we benefit from and are expected to review the work of our colleagues. A request to review a manuscript recognizes the reviewer's expertise as an authority or leader in a field of research. The capacity to conduct a good review enhances one's reputation and career advancement, and is well worth the effort expended. Manuscripts submitted to the Agricultural Institute of Canada (AIC) scientific journals are logged and monitored through a centralized processing system. A primary goal of the journals is to review manuscripts within 90 d of submission. Good reviews provide a constructive and well-reasoned appraisal of a manuscript phrased in the spirit of professional courtesy and confidentiality. Both anonymity of the reviewer and confidentiality of manuscript contents must be maintained in the peer review process. Any question of conflict of interest or ethical standing of a reviewer or duplication of publication should be directed to the editor immediately. Editors, authors, and reviewers are important partners in the peer review process. Key words: Peer review, manuscript processing, scientific journals

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document