scholarly journals Criteria for Peer Reviewing the Original Articles Submitted to a Biomedical Journal: Intellectual Honesty is the Best Policy.

2004 ◽  
Vol 43 (152) ◽  
pp. 103-110
Author(s):  
Bishnu Hari Paudel
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Quality Review ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Biomedical Publication ◽  
Timely Review ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Biomedical Publications ◽  
Review Criteria

Peer review - a process of assessing the quality of manuscripts submitted to a journal – is an establishednorm in biomedical publications. It is viewed as an extension of scientific process. The peer-reviewed researcharticles are considered trustworthy because they are believed to be unbiased and independent. The processof reviewing is a privilege and prestige. It is highly responsible, intellectually honest, and difficult job.Being expert in certain area of biomedical science is a prerequisite for reviewers. Young peer reviewerstrained in epidemiology or statistics produce high-quality review. The International Congresses on PeerReview in Biomedical Publication have shown many unresolved issues related to preparation or handling ofmanuscripts by a journal. Therefore, it is vital to identify authentic peer reviewers to ensure qualitypublication, thus, a set of peer review criteria is proposed for peer reviewing original articles. It is useful inquantifying (scoring) the manuscript quality. The proposed scoring system yields three categories ofmanuscripts: the first category is considered acceptable for publication after minor modification by editorialboard and/or reviewers, the second – requires rewriting and resubmission, and the third – rejected. Thesecriteria are preliminary guidelines, and require timely review. They are expected to sensitise peer reviewers,editors, contributors, and readers to move towards greater honesty and responsibility while working withmanuscripts. In summary, if the criteria are used they will facilitate editorial management of manuscripts,render more justice to authors and biomedical science, and improve publication quality.Key Words: Biomedical publication, peer review, peer review criteria, scoring of manuscripts, categories of manuscripts, journal of Nepal Medical Association.

scholarly journals Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. García ◽  
Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez ◽  
J. Fdez-Valdivia
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Hybrid Mode ◽  
Optimal Price ◽  
Benchmark Scenario ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Review Model

AbstractGiven how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay.

scholarly journals Evaluating, Improving, and Appreciating Peer Review at IJTMB

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Ann Blair Kennedy, LMT, BCTMB, DrPH
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Improve Efficiency ◽  
Peer Reviewers

  Peer review is a mainstay of scientific publishing and, while peer reviewers and scientists report satisfaction with the process, peer review has not been without criticism. Within this editorial, the peer review process at the IJTMB is defined and explained. Further, seven steps are identified by the editors as a way to improve efficiency of the peer review and publication process. Those seven steps are: 1) Ask authors to submit possible reviewers; 2) Ask reviewers to update profiles; 3) Ask reviewers to “refer a friend”; 4) Thank reviewers regularly; 5) Ask published authors to review for the Journal; 6) Reduce the length of time to accept peer review invitation; and 7) Reduce requested time to complete peer review. We believe these small requests and changes can have a big effect on the quality of reviews and speed in which manuscripts are published. This manuscript will present instructions for completing peer review profiles. Finally, we more formally recognize and thank peer reviewers from 2018–2020.

scholarly journals Peer Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Editorial Team ◽  
Deni Firmansyah
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Peer Reviewers

We would like to thank our peer reviewers for the precious contributions in providing clinical,scientific, and methodological expertise for JMH Volume 3 Number 2 August 2021. Weappreciate every thoughtful review of submitted manuscripts and for making importantcontributions to improve the scientific quality of articles published in JMH.We listed the names in alphabetical order.Abram Pratama, dr., Sp.PD.Adhi Kristianto Sugianli, dr., Sp.PK(K), M.Kes.Prof. Dr. Asep Sukohar, dr., M.Kes.Deta Tanuwidjaja, dr., Sp.KFR., AIFO-K.Dimas Erlangga Luftimas, dr., M.Kes., Sp.GK.Edwin Setiabudi, dr., Sp.PD-KKV, FINASIMFenny, dr., Sp.PK., M.Kes.Ginna Megawati, dr., M.Kes.Grace Puspasari, dr., M.GiziDr. Guswan Wiwaha, dr., MM.Dr. Hana Ratnawati, dr., M.Kes., PA(K)Juwita Ningsih, drg., M.Sc.Dr. Meilinah Hidayat, dr., M.Kes.Santun Bhekti Rahimah, dr., M.Kes.The, Fransiska Eltania, dr., M.Kes., A3M.Teresa Lucretia, dr., M.Kes.Prof. Wahyuni Lukita Atmadja, dr., Ph.D.Yenni Limyati, dr., S.Sn., Sp.KFR.Yuktiana Kharisma, dr., M.Kes.

scholarly journals Data journals: types of peer review, review criteria, and editorial committee members’ positions

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-135
Author(s):  
Sunkyung Seo ◽  
Jihyun Kim
Keyword(s):  
Data Quality ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Editorial Committee ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Current State ◽  
Metadata Quality ◽  
Data Production ◽  
Open Review ◽  
Review Criteria

Purpose: This study analyzed the peer review systems, criteria, and editorial committee structures of data journals, aiming to determine the current state of data peer review and to offer suggestions.Methods: We analyzed peer review systems and criteria for peer review in nine data journals indexed by Web of Science, as well as the positions of the editorial committee members of the journals. Each data journal’s website was initially surveyed, and the editors-in-chief were queried via email about any information not found on the websites. The peer review criteria of the journals were analyzed in terms of data quality, metadata quality, and general quality.Results: Seven of the nine data journals adopted single-blind and open review peer review methods. The remaining two implemented modified models, such as interactive and community review. In the peer review criteria, there was a shared emphasis on the appropriateness of data production methodology and detailed descriptions. The editorial committees of the journals tended to have subject editors or subject advisory boards, while a few journals included positions with the responsibility of evaluating the technical quality of data.Conclusion: Creating a community of subject experts and securing various editorial positions for peer review are necessary for data journals to achieve data quality assurance and to promote reuse. New practices will emerge in terms of data peer review models, criteria, and editorial positions, and further research needs to be conducted.

scholarly journals Charity is welcome: The international benefits and pitfalls of peer Review

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Steel ◽  
Amy Price ◽  
Bhavna Seth ◽  
Rakesh Biswas ◽  
Pranab Chatterjee
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Traditional Method ◽  
Academic Work ◽  
Center Stage ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
The World ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Way

Peer review is the traditional method for validating academic work and this process is not without complications. Debates about the way peer reviewing is accomplished, the hazy but sensational world of retractions and the costs of publishing for authors are taking center stage. In no other field do people conceive and build the work, pay for it, inspect it, distribute it and buy it back again for their continued survival. Still after all this investment they can struggle for rights of access. In order to stem the tide of discontent, incentives for peer reviewers were introduced. The authors investigate the many faceted approaches to incentivize the process of peer review and consider what value they add, if any. The authors explore other avenues to benefit the largely anonymous and uncredited work of peer reviewers who remain the sentinels of the world of published evidence.

scholarly journals PEER REVIEW

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Editorial Team
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Peer Reviewers

We would like to thank our peer reviewers for the precious contributions in providing clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise for JMH Volume 2 Number 4 August 2019. We appreciate every thoughtful review of submitted manuscripts and for making important contributions to improve the scientific quality of articles published in JMH. We listed the names in alphabetical order.Ade Kurnia,dr.,SpKJDR Agung Budi,dr.,Sp.BSBenjamin J. Tanuwihardja, dr., SpP, FCCP.Cherry Azaria,dr.,M.KesDecky Gunawan,dr.,M.Kes,AIFODemes Chornelia Martantiningtyas,S.Si.,M.ScDewi Karita,dr.,M.ScDR.Diana Krisanti Jasaputra, dr.,M.Kesdr Dono, Sp.BDrs. Eko Suhartono, M.ScJuwita Raditya Ningsih,drg.,M.ScFanny Rahardja,dr.,M.SiFathul Huda, dr., Ph.D.Heddy Herdiman,dr.,M.KesJulia Windi Gunadi,dr.,M.KesLusiana Darsono,dr., M.Kes.DR.Med. Muhammad Hasan Bashari, dr., M.Kes.Noveline,dr.,Sp.SDr. Oeij Anindita Adhika, dr., M Kes.Prof. dr. Wahyuni Lukita Atmadja, PhDStella Tinia Hasianna,dr.,M.Kes,IBCLCSusan Irawati, B.Biomed Sc., M.Biomed Sc.DR. Teresa Liliana W, S.Si., M.Kes., PA(K)DR.Titik Respati,drg., MScPHYenni Limyati,dr.,S.Sn,Sp.KFRYuktiana Kharisma,dr.,M.Kes

scholarly journals PEER REVIEW

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Editorial Team
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Peer Reviewers

We would like to thank our peer reviewers for the precious contributions in providing clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise for JMH Volume 2 Number 2 August 2018. We appreciate every thoughtful review of submitted manuscripts and for making important contributions to improve the scientific quality of articles published in JMH. We listed the names in alphabetical order.DR.Achadiyani,dr.,M.Kes Prof. DR. Ambrosius Purba, dr.,MS.,AIFOProf. Andreanus A. Soemardji, DEACherry Azaria,dr.,M.KesDecky Gunawan,dr., M.Kes,AIFODR.Guswan Wiwaha, dr., MMHeddy Herdiman,dr.,M.KesHendra Polii, drg., Sp.RKGJulia Windi Gunadi,dr.,M.KesJuly Ivone, dr., MKK., MPd.Ked Laella Kinghua Liana,dr.,Sp.PA,M.KesDR. Meilinah Hidayat, dr., M.KesRoro Wahyudianingsih,dr.,Sp.PASijani Prahastuti,dr.,M.KesStella Tinia Hasianna,dr., M.Kes,IBCLCYenni Limyati,dr.,Sp.KFR.,M.KesYuktiana Kharisma, dr., M.Kes

CORP: Assessing author compliance with data presentation guidelines for manuscript figures

2020 ◽  
Vol 318 (5) ◽  
pp. H1051-H1058
Author(s):  
Kara Hansell Keehan ◽  
Michelle C. Gaffney ◽  
Irving H. Zucker
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Data Presentation ◽  
Circulatory Physiology ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Data Points ◽  
Timely Fashion ◽  
Additional Figure

The present study was undertaken to address the concern that author compliance with American Physiological Society (APS) journal instructions to authors for data presentation in manuscript figures is inadequate. Common instances of noncompliance are omitted molecular weight markers for immunoblots and bar graphs lacking individual data points. The American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology ( AJP-Heart and Circ) editorial team designed a program to assess figure data presentation in submitted manuscripts. The intended outcome was to improve author compliance with APS data presentation guidelines and to improve overall rigor and reproducibility in articles published in AJP-Heart and Circ. The AJP-Heart and Circ team invited 37 peer reviewers to participate in a figure reviewer project (FRp). Over a period of five months, 32 first-revision manuscripts were enrolled in the FRp. Each manuscript was reviewed by the original peer reviewers and an additional figure reviewer (FR). Post-peer review, corresponding authors and FRs were surveyed for insight into their experiences. Of the 32 corresponding authors invited, 20 (63%) responded to the survey. In response to the survey, 100% of respondents stated that peer review was performed in a timely fashion despite the additional FR. When asked whether the FR experience had any effect on how one would present data in manuscript figures in future submissions, 65% of authors and 83% of FRs said yes. In addition, 63% of authors responding agreed that the overall quality of their figures was improved after revising based on FR comments. This exercise resulted in improved compliance with APS data presentation guidelines and changed attitudes among both authors and reviewers as to the need for consistent and clear data presentation in manuscript figures. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The goal of the American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology figure reviewer program was to improve author compliance with existing APS data presentation instructions for manuscript figures. The result was an improvement in compliance with these guidelines. Time from submission to final decision did not significantly increase for papers with the additional figure reviewer, and both figure reviewers and corresponding authors reported positive feedback in post-program surveys.

Peer Reviewers as Co-Authors

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matheus Pereira Lobo
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Reward System ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Open peer review is a process in which names of peer reviewers of papers submitted to academic journals are disclosed to the authors of the papers in question. Peer reviewing is a tough task, it requires large amounts of knowledge and effort. Reviewers usually work in the same discipline as the authors of the paper under consideration. It seems natural to ponder that those reviewers could give major contributions if they could sign the paper as one of the co-authors. Here we propose that open peer reviewers should join the list of co-authors as a reward system based on transparency, expertise and justice.

scholarly journals Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael D'Andrea ◽  
James P O'Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Editorial Strategies ◽  
Published Research

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document