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

scholarly journals How to choose and become a reviewer for a scientific medical journal

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 151
Author(s):  
Paola Gnerre ◽  
Giorgio Vescovo ◽  
Paola Granata ◽  
Cecilia Politi ◽  
Andrea Fontanella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Publication Delay ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Good Review

Peer review is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. The peer review of scientific manuscripts is a cornerstone of modern science and medicine. Some journals have difficulty in finding appropriate reviewers who are able to complete reviews on time avoiding publication delay. We discuss some of the main issues involved during the peer review process. The reviewer has a direct and important impact on the quality of a scientific medical Journal. Editors select reviewers on the basis of their expertise. Reviewers are more likely to accept to review a manuscript when it is relevant to their area of interest. They should respond to ethical principles, excluding any conflict of interest condition. The reviewer has to be professional, constructive, tactful, empathetic and respectful. Structured approaches, quality indicators and step-by-step process check list formats could be useful in obtaining a good review.

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 Proposals for the Writing of Peer Reviews in Lexicography

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (54) ◽  
pp. 107
Author(s):  
Henning Bergenholtz ◽  
Rufus Gouws
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Publishing House ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Scientific Outputs ◽  
Good Review ◽  
Important Quality

<p>In lexicography a good review is important for the dictionary maker(s), the publishing house and the whole lexicographical community. It is also important for the reviewers because it can expand their research record. Up to a few years ago reviews were still acknowledged in research databases. Currently they can be included in a database, but they do not count as scientific outputs. The situation for peer reviews is similar. Peer reviews are an important quality assurance tool in the scientific publication process. Good peer reviews have some mutual characteristics with reviews, especially regarding ethical aspects. But there are essential differences. These issues are discussed in this paper and some methodological and ethical proposals for peer reviews are made. One of the proposals could create a debate because it argues for an open peer review process and not for the so-called double blind peer review. Another proposal focuses on the role of the editor and his ability to decide if a peer review should be rejected and not be forwarded to the author.</p>

Shadow Program Committee Initiative

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 16-18
Author(s):  
Patanamon Thongtanunam ◽  
Ayushi Rastogi ◽  
Foutse Khomh ◽  
Serge Demeyer ◽  
Meiyappan Nagappan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Program Committee ◽  
Early Career ◽  
New Faculty ◽  
Great Chance ◽  
Good Review ◽  
Initiative Program

The Shadow Program Committee (PC) is an initiative/program that provides an opportunity to Early-Career Researchers (ECRs), i.e., PhD students, postdocs, new faculty members, and industry practitioners, who have not been in a PC, to learn rst-hand about the peer-review process of the technical track at Software Engi- neering (SE) conferences. This program aims to train the next generation of PC members as well as to allow ECRs to be recog- nized and embedded in the research community. By participating in this program, ECRs will have a great chance i) to gain expe- rience about the reviewing process including the restrictions and ethical standards of the academic peer-review process; ii) to be mentored by senior researchers on how to write a good review; and iii) to create a network with other ECRs and senior researchers (i.e., Shadow PC advisors). The Shadow PC program was rst introduced to the SE research community at the Mining Software Repositories (MSR) confer- ence in 2021. The program was led by Patanamon Thongta- nunam and Ayushi Rastogi (Shadow PC Co-chairs) with support from Shadow PC Advisor Co-Chairs (Foutse Khomh and Serge Demeyer), PC Co-Chairs of the technical track (Meiyappan Na- gappan and Kelly Blincoe), and the General Chair of the con- ference, Gregorio Robles. To promote and facilitate the Shadow PC program at SE conferences in the future, this report provides details about the process and a re ection on the Shadow PC pro- gram during MSR2021. The presentation slides and video are also available online at https://youtu.be/ReUXwmtIEk8.

scholarly journals Does Peer Review Identify the Best Papers? A Simulation Study of Editors, Reviewers, and the Scientific Publication Process

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (04) ◽  
pp. 963-969 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Esarey
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Computational Simulation ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Review System ◽  
Multiple Systems ◽  
Average Reader

ABSTRACTHow does the structure of the peer review process, which can vary among journals, influence the quality of papers published in a journal? This article studies multiple systems of peer review using computational simulation. I find that, under any of the systems I study, a majority of accepted papers are evaluated by an average reader as not meeting the standards of the journal. Moreover, all systems allow random chance to play a strong role in the acceptance decision. Heterogeneous reviewer and reader standards for scientific quality drive both results. A peer review system with an active editor—that is, one who uses desk rejection before review and does not rely strictly on reviewer votes to make decisions—can mitigate some of these effects.

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?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document