Editorial Policies Overview

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Chen
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Editorial Policies ◽  
Scientific Experts ◽  
Open Access Publisher ◽  
Single Blind

As a global open access publisher, Tech Science Press is dedicated to disseminating cutting-edge scholarly research among scientific community by advocating an immediate, world-wide and barrier-free access to the research we publish. To ensure all publication meeting our ethical and scientific quality standards, each submission goes through a rigorous review process, including pre-peer-review by relevant editorial board, a single-blind peer-review process by scientific experts, revision following reviewers’ comments as well as final approval by the editorial board.

scholarly journals Assessment of Variables that Influence Agreement Amongst Reviewers for Foot & Ankle International

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473011418S0030
Author(s):  
John Kwon ◽  
Tyler Gonzalez ◽  
Chris Miller ◽  
Shera Palmer Cook ◽  
David Thordarson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Initial Decision ◽  
Area Of Interest

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: The peer-review process is a rigorous process under which manuscripts are assessed for their overall scientific quality and is generally accepted as the highest standard of scientific scrutiny with regard to medical publishing. A common criticism regards the often disparate nature of reviewer recommendations when a decision is rendered which belies the supposed uniformity of the review process. The purpose of this investigation was to: (1) examine the historic level of agreement amongst reviewers for Foot & Ankle International (FAI) and (2) to assess variables which may influence agreement in order to improve the peer-review process. Methods: Approval to conduct this study was obtained from the Editorial Board of FAI. All manuscripts submitted to FAI during 2015 which underwent peer-review were included in the analysis. For each reviewed manuscript, demographic data was collected regarding specific reviewer and manuscript characteristics in a de-identified manner. Univariate analysis was performed. Results: 442 manuscripts underwent peer-review by 198 reviewers during the study period. During this time period, other papers were reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and rejected prior to being sent out for review. Of the 884 reviews performed, 339 (38%) recommended rejection, 353 (40%) recommended revision and resubmission and191(22%) recommended accept. Only 199 manuscripts (45%) had a decision rendered in which both reviewers agreed on the initial recommendation.The most common initial decision was rejection (52.7%) followed by revise and resubmit (42.8%). Only 20 manuscripts (4.5%) received an outright acceptance upon initial review. Comparing the agreeing versus disagreeing reviewers, there was no difference in demographic data such as reviewer age or experience. When examining key words (designated by reviewers as a particular area of interest within foot and ankle), there was no association between shared interests and level of reviewer agreement. Overall, for all reviewers, mean acceptance rate was19% (+/- 16%), mean reject rate 37% (+/- 20%) and mean revise 44% (+/- 19%). Conclusion: Regarding initial decision for publication in FAI, there was only 45% agreement amongst reviewers for manuscripts which underwent peer-review in 2015. However, no reviewer-specific variables examined in this investigation were found to correlate with agreement. Despite reviewers having similar interests in various aspects of foot and ankle surgery, this did not lead to an increased likelihood of agreement. Agreement and more uniform assessment of manuscripts by reviewers may be increased by specific education.

scholarly journals Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth C Moylan ◽  
Simon Harold ◽  
Ciaran O’Neill ◽  
Maria K Kowalczuk
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Single Blind

scholarly journals Chief Editor's Voice

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Prof. Dr. Ashok Kumar Jha
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Research Journal ◽  
Service Commission ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Double Blinded

The RMC of the campus feels much pleasure to publish the annual multi-disciplinary peer reviewed research journal DRISTIKON as vol. 11(1). The journal and the articles published in it are clear evidence and fulfill the requirements laid down by UGC, Nepal, Tribhuvan University Service Commission, APA 7th ed. and other platforms. The journal is designed to serve as an outlet for an intellectual forum for the communication of intellectual ideas among professionals and other social scientists in relevant areas in general and with special reference to Nepal. The board welcomes all the professionals, researchers and all those interested to publish their research findings with significant contribution to society, education sector and international platform. Authors are also encouraged to submit papers which are related to current international, national or local issues. Almost all the scholarly and research articles published in the journal undergo the editorial peer review process prior to publication to fulfill the requirements of peer review process guided by UGC, Nepal and international standard. The goal of the peer review process is to ensure that the valid article is accepted, the messy article cleaned up, and the invalid article rejected. The board of editors has accepted the reviewer’s recommendations. All the articles submitted for publication are subjected to rigorous double blinded peer review to ensure its quality before it gets published.  Manuscripts submitted to this journal must not have been published or accepted for publication or submitted for publication elsewhere. The journal strictly follows guidelines of APA 7th ed. as well as strongly opposes plagiarized contents without proper citation. Following the necessary corrections and additions resulting from the review process the twenty accepted papers were included into the issue covering the specific areas of Nepali, English, Political Science, Science and Management. The cooperation extended by scholars and institutions in publishing this journal is highly appreciated. The opinions expressed in the articles are the author’s own and do not reflect the view of either the publisher or the editorial board. All manuscripts once published becomes the property of the publisher. We hope that inspiration and encouragement from the readers will continue to keep the ‘Dristikon’ alive and develop. We are also looking forward to receiving your comments and suggestions for further improvement in the future. We are grateful to the peer reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. The editorial board heartily thanks all the writers who have contributed research articles. We would also like to give special thanks to the campus chief Mr. Damodar Bhandari for his constant support in terms of finance and administration for the publication of this journal.

scholarly journals Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers’ confidential comments to editors

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0260558
Author(s):  
Bridget C. O’Brien ◽  
Anthony R. Artino ◽  
Joseph A. Costello ◽  
Erik Driessen ◽  
Lauren A. Maggio
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Argument Quality ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Coding Scheme ◽  
Explicit Reference ◽  
Education Journal ◽  
Single Blind

Purpose Recent calls to improve transparency in peer review have prompted examination of many aspects of the peer-review process. Peer-review systems often allow confidential comments to editors that could reduce transparency to authors, yet this option has escaped scrutiny. Our study explores 1) how reviewers use the confidential comments section and 2) alignment between comments to the editor and comments to authors with respect to content and tone. Methods Our dataset included 358 reviews of 168 manuscripts submitted between January 1, 2019 and August 24, 2020 to a health professions education journal with a single blind review process. We first identified reviews containing comments to the editor. Then, for the reviews with comments, we used procedures consistent with conventional and directed qualitative content analysis to develop a coding scheme and code comments for content, tone, and section of the manuscript. For reviews in which the reviewer recommended “reject,” we coded for alignment between reviewers’ comments to the editor and to authors. We report descriptive statistics. Results 49% of reviews contained comments to the editor (n = 176). Most of these comments summarized the reviewers’ impression of the article (85%), which included explicit reference to their recommended decision (44%) and suitability for the journal (10%). The majority of comments addressed argument quality (56%) or research design/methods/data (51%). The tone of comments tended to be critical (40%) or constructive (34%). For the 86 reviews recommending “reject,” the majority of comments to the editor contained content that also appeared in comments to the authors (80%); additional content tended to be irrelevant to the manuscript. Tone frequently aligned (91%). Conclusion Findings indicate variability in how reviewers use the confidential comments to editor section in online peer-review systems, though generally the way they use them suggests integrity and transparency to authors.

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 916 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Urban Planning ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Original Work ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Paper Format ◽  
E Mail ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Paper Submission

Abstract Type of peer review Single – blind Criteria of accepting / declining paper All accepted papers must meet the following criteria: 1. The topic is in the coverage topics of the conference 2. The paper is an original work and has not been published 3. Pass the plagiarism test 4. The paper is written in a good English 5. Follow the proceeding format The editorial board gave an opportunity to resubmit as long as the paper met points (1), (2) and (3) of the acceptance criteria Conference submission system All abstract and papers were submitted to the conference editorial board using the conference submission system: http://icpeu.teknik.ub.ac.id/final-paper-submission/ Number of submissions received 84 papers Number of submissions sent for review 84 papers Number of submissions accepted 70 (36 papers were selected for publications in IOP - EES) Acceptance Rate (%) 83.3% Average number of reviews per paper 5 reviews per paper including 3 reviews for the content and 2 reviews for paper format Total number of reviewers involved 3 persons as follows: • Johanes Parlindungan, ST., MT, PhD (PIC) • Imma Widyawati Agustin, ST., MT., Ph.D • Dr. Techn. Christia Mediana, ST., M.Eng Any additional info on review process The conference editorial board applied two addition checks: • Plagiarism check using www.grammarly.com • Language / grammatical check done by a professional proofreader Contact person for queries: Johannes Parlindungan, ST., MT, PhD Department of Regional and Urban Planning, Universitas Brawijaya E-mail: [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2022 ◽  
Vol 2148 (1) ◽  
pp. 011003
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Software Tool ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Technical Quality ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Initial Check

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) 1. ICPEM Editors perform an initial check of the manuscript’s suitability upon receipt, and use a software tool to finish the plagiarism analysis, manuscripts are out of conference topics will be rejected directly, generally, authors will receive the result within 3-5 working days in this round. 2. Only the manuscripts passed the initial checking can be submitted to reviewers, ICPEM Editorial Office will then organize the peer-review process performed by independent experts. Papers will be strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts and reviewers. 3. All regular papers are reviewed by at least two reviewers, but usually by three or more, and rated considering: Relevance, Originality, Technical Quality, Significance and Presentation of the submissions; There are four results: 1, Accept; 2, Accept after Minor Revisions; 3, Reconsider after Major Revisions; 4, Reject. 4. Authors have 2-3 weeks to make minor or major revisions after received the comments from reviewers. Usually, one round of major revisions is allowed. 5. Only the submission passed the peer review and accepted by reviewers will be included in the conference proceeding finally. • Conference submission management system: Online Email System • Number of submissions received: 141 • Number of submissions sent for review: 116 (25 papers out of the conference scope are rejected directly) • Number of submissions accepted: 69 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 49% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2-3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 164 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Name : Josh Sheng Affiliation: Hubei Zhongke Research Institute of Nature Science, China Email : [email protected]

scholarly journals Editorial for the Inaugural Issue: Grande Medical Journal (GMJ)

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Prakash Kafle
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Editorial Policy ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Clinical Images

We are proud and honored to launch the inaugural issue of our new academic endeavor – Grande Medical Journal (GMJ), published by Academic & Research Department, Grande International Hospital (GIH). GMJ is an annual, open, peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal that encompasses all fields of medicine and clinical practice. GMJ will be published both in print and online. It will be freely accessible via the internet through GIH’s website with open access to the full text of articles. There will be no subscription fees to the readers or processing fees for the authors. Publisher and authors who publish in the journal will jointly retain the copyright to their article. The editorial policy of GMJ will be guided by the high standards of scientific quality and integrity, professional responsibility, and ethical legacy. GMJ follows double-blind peer-review process. This minimizes the possibility of a biased opinion ensuring a responsible and ethical environment. GMJ will be initially published as one issue per year, and with contributions from national and international physicians and scientists, we aim to increase the frequency to two issues per year. GMJ will publish original research, clinical review, invited reviews, case report, clinical problem solving, clinical images, short communications, and editorials. This inaugural issue features fifteen scientific papers - 1 invited review, 3 original researches, 2 clinical reviews, 1 clinical images article, 8 case reports. The editorial board is committed to get the journal indexed in major search engines, indices, and databases to increase their visibility/ searchability and recognition in wider scientific community. For us to achieve these goals, in the forthcoming issues we seek to publish original, high-quality, peerreviewed papers including original clinical and editorials, clinical reviews, and correspondence on matters that will provide comprehensive coverage on all aspects and subspecialties of medicine. We would like to thank everyone who has worked diligently behind the scenes to bring this inaugural issue to fruition. This launch of the GMJ would not have been possible without the contributions from authors, and experienced and devoted reviewers who willingly signed up for timeconsuming workloads and enthusiastically agreed to provide their critical input to the review process. Thank you all for your trust and support. Indeed, it is a real honor to serve as the founding editors. Sincerely Yours,Prakash Kafle, MSEditor-in-Chief

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 946 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Marine Geology ◽  
Scientific Discussion ◽  
Text Quality ◽  
Marine Geology And Geophysics

All papers published in this volume (IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science) have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-anonymous: authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, reviewers’ identities are hidden from authors. Main criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers: 1. Relevance to the scope of the Conference 2. Suitability & length of the title 3. Scientific originality 4. Adequacy of the abstract 5. Scientific quality 6. Text quality 7. English level • Conference submission management system: Full paper submission was fully managed by editorial board of Conference • Number of submissions received: 53 full papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 51 full papers • Number of submissions accepted: 48 full papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 90.56 % • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 (117 reviews) • Total number of reviewers involved: 51 reviewers (15 institutes) from 3 countries • Any additional info on review process: The review process and revision were conducted 3 rounds on average for each paper since the first submission after presentation at the conference. The first step was to check the format of paper and base quality of English level. The second-round of review was organized for papers with minor remarks from reviewers, for example the graphics or style. The third round required only for papers that need major modifications (scientific discussion on topic). All reviewers were asked to complete the review within enough time ranged no more than three weeks. We have asked authors to revise according to suggestions by reviewers within time ranged between 7-10 days. After being accepted, the final English proofread and format checking our specialists were carried out to ensure the quality prior to submission to IOP EES. • Contact person for queries: Name: Aleksandr Zakupin, Ph.D. Affiliation: Institute for Marine Geology and Geophysics, Department of Seismology Email: [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 875 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
State University ◽  
Advance Research ◽  
Primary Hypothesis ◽  
Scientific Station ◽  
E Mail

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind • Conference submission management system: The submission processing had no a software system. Call-for-paper was placed on the Conference web page, the papers were submitted via e-mail. The reviews were asked and received via e-mails. • Number of submissions received: 118 • Number of submissions sent for review: 104 • Number of submissions accepted: 93 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 79% • Average number of reviews per paper: 1.9 • Total number of reviewers involved: 1,433 • Any additional info on review process: The consideration of the submitted manuscript included independent peer review process. At least two reviewers gave their view and remarks for each paper. All reviewers were asked to provide a detailed review with comments for authors and editors and evaluate paper taking into account the questions list (Is this work novel? Is this work scientifically correct (the experimental procedure and sequence)? Does the subject significantly advance research in the fields of research? Does it have high scientific quality? Does this work have significant proof to verify the primary hypothesis? Is this work incremental? Is the paper clearly written, concise and understandable? Should the English be improved? Is the paper scientifically sound and not misleading?). All reviewers also were asked to provide their recommendations about paper acceptance (to publish the paper “as is”; to publish the paper after minor revision; to publish the paper after major revision; to reject the paper). • Contact person for queries: Dr. Anna Godymchuk, Tobolsk Complex Scientific Station, [email protected] Prof. Svetlana Morkovina, Vice-rector of Voronezh State University of Forestry and Technologies named after G.F. Morozov, Russia [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review blinding practices of highly ranked dental journals: analysis and discussion

BDJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Lower Odds ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Single Blind

AbstractObjectives To evaluate the type of peer review blinding used in highly ranked dental journals and to discuss the influence of the blinding approaches on the peer review process.Methods All 91 dental journals classified by impact factor (IF) had their websites scrutinised for the type of peer review blinding used for submissions. If the information was not reported, the journals were contacted to obtain the information. Linear and logistic regression were applied to evaluate the association between type of peer review blinding and IF.Results The selected journals reported the following peer review blinding approaches: single-blind (N = 36, 39.6%), double-blind (N = 46, 50.5%), transparent (N = 2, 2.2%) and open (N = 1, 1.1%). Information from six (6.6%) journals was not available. A linear regression analysis demonstrated that journals with lower IFs were associated with double-blind review (p = 0.001). A logistic regression suggested lower odds of association between single-blind peer review and journals with IFs below a threshold of 2 (odds ratio 0.157, confidence interval 0.059 to 0.417, p <0.001).Conclusions The majority of highly ranked dental journals had single- and double-blind peer review; journals with higher IFs presented single-blind peer review and those with lower IFs reported double-blind peer review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document