scholarly journals An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Peer to Peer Surgical Teaching and the Role of the Peer Review Process

Pharmacy ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-201
Author(s):  
Sheila Oh ◽  
Noel Lynch ◽  
Nora McCarthy ◽  
Tulin Cil ◽  
Elaine Lehane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Peer To Peer ◽  
Surgical Teaching

scholarly journals Expression of Concern: Hamza et al. A Potential Role of Apelin-13 against Hepatic Injury and Metabolic Disorders in Preeclampsia Induced by L-NAME. Coatings 2021, 11, 391

Coatings ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1117
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Guest Editor ◽  
Metabolic Disorders ◽  
Hepatic Injury ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Special Issue

Following acceptance of the Special Issue article by the Guest Editor, El-Sayed Abd El-Aziz, concerns were raised regarding the integrity of the peer review process [...]

scholarly journals A look inside the black box of scientific publishing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Cavalleri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Journal Editor ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Black Boxes ◽  
Process Work

Publishing the results of one’s research is an integral part of the scientific process, yet scholarly journals are often seen as black boxes by researchers. What happens to a paper after it is submitted? Who is deciding on its fate? What is the role of the journal editor and the editorial office? How does the peer-review process work, and are its core principles still relevant in today’s changing publishing landscape? In this talk I will discuss these questions in an attempt to de-mystify the peer review process from an editor’s perspective, and cover the whats, the hows and the whys of peer review.

scholarly journals Peer review under the ethical lens: possible questions

Bosniaca ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (25) ◽  
pp. 183
Author(s):  
Alexandru-Ionuţ Petrişor
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
University Ranking ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Citation Metrics

The pressure to publish and get cited along with the extensive use of citation metrics in individual career promotion, research funding and university ranking have radically changed the research ecosystem during the last few decades, favoring the rise of predatory journals. This phenomenon has shaken the very backbone of the system, represented by the peer review process. The present article builds up upon the recommendation for reviewers, including the ethical ones, and articles expressing some concerns related to the peer review in order not to answer, but merely ask several questions that could serve as the start point for a reform of the system. Overall, the role of peer review is not at stakes, but its intricate mechanisms need to adapt to the challenges of the new environment.-------------------------------------------------Stručna recenzija pod etičkim povećalom: moguća pitanjaPritisak da se rad objavi i citira zajedno s velikom upotrebom citatskih metrika u individualnoj promociji karijere, financiranju istraživanja i rangiranju univerziteta radikalno su promijenili istraživački ekosistem tijekom posljednjih nekoliko desetljeća, pogodujući porastu grabežljivih časopisa. Ovaj fenomen je uzdrmao samu okosnicu sistema, predstavljenog postupkom stručne recenzije. Ovaj se članak temelji na preporuci za recenzente, uključujući etiku, te članci izražavaju zabrinutost koja se odnosi na recenziju, ne kako bi dali odgovor, već postavljajući samo nekoliko pitanja koja bi mogla poslužiti kao polazište za reformu sistema. Sveukupno, uloga stručne provjere nije na kocki, ali njeni zamršeni mehanizmi moraju se prilagoditi izazovima novog okruženja.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document