scholarly journals Peer Review and JEPHC

2003 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Archer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Web Site ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Product Reviews ◽  
Essential Requirement

An essential requirement of a profession’s scientific journal is an effective and transparent process of peer review. With the exception of editorials, book and web site reviews, ACAP Updates, product reviews, conference reports and profiles, all articles offered to JEPHC are peer reviewed.

scholarly journals Peer Review and JEPHC

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Archer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Web Site ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Product Reviews ◽  
Essential Requirement

n essential requirement of a profession's scientific journal is an effective and transparent process of peer review. With the exception of editorials, book and web site reviews, ACAP Updates, product reviews, conference reports and profiles, all articles offered to JEPHC are peer reviewed.

scholarly journals Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Resnik ◽  
Christina Gutierrez-Ford ◽  
Shyamal Peddada
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Ethical Problems

scholarly journals Eyes wide open: reader and author responsibility in understanding the limits of peer review

2015 ◽  
Vol 97 (7) ◽  
pp. 487-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
PJ Benson
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Public Library ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Review Journal ◽  
Peer Review Journal

‘Medical science can only flourish in a free society and dies under totalitarian repression.’ 1 Peer review post-publication is relatively easy to define: when the world decides the importance of publication. Peer review pre-publication is what the scientific community frequently means when using the term ‘peer review’. But what it is it? Few will agree on an exact definition; generally speaking, it refers to an independent, third party scrutiny of a manuscript by scientific experts (called peers) who advise on its suitability for publication. Peer review is expensive; although reviewers are unpaid, the cost in time is enormous and it is slow. There is often little agreement among reviewers about whether an article should be published and peer review can be a lottery. Often referred to as a quality assurance process, there are many examples of when peer review failed. Many will be aware of Woo-Suk Hwang’s shocking stem cell research misconduct at Seoul National University. 2 Science famously published two breakthrough articles that were found subsequently to be completely fabricated and this happened in spite of peer review. Science is not unique in making this error. However, love it or hate it, peer review, for the present time at least, is here to stay. In this article, Philippa Benson, Managing Editor of Science Advances (the first open access journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), discusses the merits of peer review. Dr Benson has extensive experience in the publishing world and was Executive Director of PJB Consulting, a not-for-profit organisation supporting clients on issues related to converting to full electronic publishing workflows as well as challenges working with international authors and publishers. Her clients included the Public Library of Science journals, the American Society for Nutrition and the de Beaumont Foundation. She recently co-authored a book, What Editors Want: An Author’s Guide to Scientific Journal Publishing (University of Chicago Press), which helps readers understand and navigate the publishing process in high impact science and technical journals. Her master’s and doctorate degrees are from Carnegie Mellon University. JYOTI SHAH Commissioning Editor References 1. Eaton KK . Editorial: when is a peer review journal not a peer review journal? J Nutr Environ Med 1997 ; 7 : 139 – 144 . 2. van der Heyden MA , van de Ven T , Opthof T . Fraud and misconduct in science: the stem cell seduction . Neth Heart J 2009 ; 17 : 25 – 29 .

scholarly journals Dear Editor, why have you rejected my article?

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (10) ◽  
pp. 313-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Pimm
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Academic Career ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
The Subject

SummaryThe experience of rejection of an article submitted for publication to a scientific journal can be particularly anxiety provoking, especially when the furtherance of an academic career or the gaining of a permanent post might be riding on getting it published. Many papers fail to get past the first hurdle and are not sent out for peer review, often as a result of the most basic of errors: the results are not generalisable, the paper adds nothing new to the subject, there are flaws in the study design or inappropriate statistics were used. Attention paid to formulating a clear research question and the adoption at the outset of a doable, interesting project will often help to avoid disappointment.

The impact of electronic publishing on the academic community

1998 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Butterworth
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Rapid Change ◽  
Optical Storage ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Essential Requirement ◽  
Software And Hardware ◽  
The Impact

Electronic publishing has many advantages, including speed, low cost and searchability. It has made most progress in the physical sciences. Peer review remains an essential requirement. The dominance of English should be countered by the use of extended character sets. The preservation of electronic data is a great challenge due to the impermanence of magnetic and optical storage, but even more by the rapid change in both software and hardware.

An international peer-review system for a Chinese scientific journal

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhang Yuehong Helen ◽  
Yuan Yachun ◽  
Jiang Yufei
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System

scholarly journals Rejection rate and reasons for rejection after peer review: a case study of a Russian economics journal

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evgueniya A Balyakina ◽  
Ludmila A Kriventsova
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Rejection Rate ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Review Reports

 Background:  Peer review remains the only way of filtering and improving research. However, there are few studies of peer review based on the contents of review reports, because access to these reports is limited. Objectives: To measure the rejection rate and to investigate the reasons for rejection after peer-review in a specialized scientific journal.  Methods:  We considered the manuscripts submitted to a Russian journal, namely ‘Economy of Region’ (Rus Экономика региона), from 2016 to 2018, and analysed the double-blind review reports related to rejected submissions in qualitative and quantitative terms including descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 1653 submissions from 2016 to 2018, 324 (20%) were published, giving an average rejection rate of 80%. Content analysis of reviewer reports showed five categories of shortcomings in the manuscripts: breaches of publication ethics, mismatch with the journal’s research area, weak research reporting (a major group, which accounted for 66%of the total); lack of novelty, and design errors. We identified two major problems in the peer-review process that require editorial correction: in 36% of the cases, the authors did not send the revised version of the manuscript to the journal after receiving editorial comments and in 30% of the cases, the reviewers made contradictory recommendations. Conclusions: To obtain a more balanced evaluation from experts and to avoid paper losses the editorial team should revise the journal’s instructions to authors, its guide to reviewers, and the form of the reviewer’s report by indicating the weightings assigned to the different criteria and by describing in detail the criteria for a good paper.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document