scholarly journals Editorial: Next Steps

2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
Mary Beth Weber
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Full Color ◽  
Seamless Transition ◽  
Library Resources ◽  
The Difference ◽  
E Mail ◽  
Technical Services

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the e-only Library Resources and Technical Services (LRTS)! We are starting the year with a new publication model for LRTS. The content and quality of the journal will remain constant, as will the submission criteria and review process. The difference is that you will no longer receive a print copy of the journal, and it will instead be delivered directly to your e-mail. Transitioning to e-only provides new opportunities. It removes page limits required for print and will enable full color copy (perfect for viewing LRTS covers and illustrative matter that accompanies papers). It will also enable us to explore new publication models used by other e-only scholarly journals. I am confident things will proceed smoothly under the watch of Tim Clifford of ALA Production Services, LRTS’s production editor, and Christine McConnell of ALCTS, LRTS’s manager. Tim has handled other ALA journals’ transition to e-only, and Christine has addressed issues related to subscriptions and publicity. I rest assured it will be a seamless transition.

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 895 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Scientific Conference ◽  
Full Paper ◽  
Scientific Content ◽  
Informative Content ◽  
Minimum Criteria ◽  
E Mail

Abstract 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: All submitted full papers were peer-reviewed by two reviewers. The acceptance was granted if the recommendations from the reviewers are positive. The criteria are based on compliance with the directions of the International Scientific Conference “Regions of new development: the current state of natural complexes and their protection”, technical and scientific content and article submission guidelines. There were three review processes: Initial Review, Peer Review and Recommendation. Initial Review The editor evaluates each manuscript in the submission track to determine if its topic and content are suitable for consideration for the conference before being reviewed. Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum criteria are returned to the authors. Peer Review Manuscripts that pass the initial review by the editors will be sent to two (2) referees based on their expertise. Reviewer identities are concealed from the author, and throughout the review process. The reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, the correspondence of the name and its content, informative content of the abstract, adequacy and correctness of citation of works in this field, confirmation of conclusions and conclusions by the data of the work, compliance, quality of references and design of the list of references. Reviewers were asked to fill out a review form and submit it within two weeks. After collecting all the reviews of the articles, the editors make a recommendation on the acceptability of the manuscript. Acceptance Decision Based on the reviewer’s comments, the editor makes a final decision on the acceptability of the manuscript and communicates to the authors the decision, along with reviewers’ reports. Based on the reviewer’s comments, the editor makes a final decision on the acceptability of the manuscript and communicates to the authors the decision, along with reviewers’ reports. Conference submission management system: Participants submitted an application for participation in the conference by sending it to the conference address: [email protected] After submitting the application, the author sent his article to the conference address: [email protected] Number of submissions received: 82 articles received Number of submissions sent for review: 70 articles submitted for review Number of submissions accepted: 44 articles were accepted by the scientific committee of the conference Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 44/82x100 = 53,7% Average number of reviews per paper: On average, two reviews per article Total number of reviewers involved: 30 reviewers Any additional info on review process: The review process was conducted using the e-mail of the organizing committee of the conference and the e-mail of the reviewers. The invitation to review the full paper was sent by email. Each full paper submitted was sent to two (2) reviewers to assess the full paper based on sections as follows: 1. Compliance of the content of the article with the profile of the publication. 2. The originality of the full paper. 3. Whether the work has previously been published in other journals. 4. Adequacy of consideration and correctness of citation of work in this field. 5. The correspondence of the name and its content. 6. Informative content of the report. 7. The quality of the drawings. 8. The quality of the tables in terms of content. 9. Confirmation of conclusions and conclusions by the data of the work. 10. Compliance, quality of references and design of the list of references. 11. The need to clarify the conclusions. 12. Strengths and weaknesses of the article in terms of content. 13. General evaluation of the article by reviewers. 14. Reviewer’s recommendations, accepted or rejected article. 15. The reviewer’s specific comment to the author of the article. All the comments by the reviewer were sent to the author to do the correction within two (2) weeks. The author needs to submit the corrected version of the full paper together with the checklist of corrections. The editor checked if the authors made all corrections. After that, the finished article was sent to the author for final verification before being sent to the publisher. Contact person for queries: Interim Director, Sc.D. (Biology), IWEP FEB RAS Maria V. Kryukova E-mail: [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration

2022 ◽  
Vol 962 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
New Information ◽  
Overall Performance ◽  
E Mail ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Made In

Abstract 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: submissions were received and handled via Conference e-mail: [email protected] • Number of submissions received: 120 • Number of submissions sent for review: 120 • Number of submissions accepted: 63 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received × 100): 53 % • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 18 • Any additional info on the review process: Each paper took 2 weeks for revisions after review; 2 rounds of the review process were applied. Review criteria for manuscripts When reviewing articles, 20 criteria were used. 1 criterion “COMPLIANCE WITH COLLECTION PROFILE”. According to this criterion, it fully corresponded to the profile of the collection of 51 articles, partially corresponded to the profile of the collection – 11, did not correspond to – 57. Thus, according to the first criterion, 57 articles were rejected, 11 were sent for revision, returned from revision and accepted after repeated review 11. Total in the final version of the collection adopted 63 articles. 2 criterion “RECOMMENDED HEADING FOR PUBLICATION”. According to this criterion, the recommended headings were refined in 5 articles, which were accepted after rereview. 3 criterion “PRESENCE OF PLAGIUM” (including auto-plagiarism). There were no rejected articles for this criterion. 4 criterion “CONTENTS”. Rejected for reason - article contains no new information – 17 articles. 5 criterion “TITLE”. According to this criterion, the authors of 3 articles were asked to change the title of the articles. After re-reviewing, these articles were accepted for publication. 6 criterion “ANNOTATION”. Changes have been made to 9 articles. The changes concerned the reduction of the annotation, as its dimensions did not meet the requirements. 7 criterion “INTRODUCTION”. On the recommendation of the editors, changes were made to 7 articles. 8 criterion “METHODS”. According to this criterion, 5 articles were sent for revision. The main reason for the revision was the lack of links to similar foreign articles. 9 criterion “EXPERIMENTAL DATA”. There were no rejected articles for this criterion. 10 criterion “STATISTICAL DATA PROCESSING”. There were no rejected articles for this criterion. 11 criterion “ILLUSTRATIONS AND SIGNATURES”. According to this criterion, it was recommended that 36 authors improve their articles. Basically, all recommendations are technical in nature. Of these, 31 articles were returned for re-review and recommended for publication. 12 criterion “TABLES AND THEIR HEADINGS”. Editors’ comments were of a technical nature. According to the publication requirements, 29 articles were sent for revision. All of them were adopted after the changes made by the authors. 13 criterion “DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS”. 6 articles were rejected, which were insufficiently substantiated and contained only a listing of the facts obtained. 14 criterion “STYLE OF PRESENTATION”. There were no rejected articles for this criterion. 15 criterion “REFERENCES”. According to this criterion, technical corrections were made in 41 articles, which were accepted after revision by the authors. 16 criterion “LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS”. There were no rejected articles for this criterion. 17 criterion “QUALITY SUMMARY”. There were no rejected articles for this criterion. 18 criterion “THE QUALITY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE OF THE WHOLE TEXT OF THE ARTICLE”. According to this criterion, 5 articles were rejected as the presentation in English was unsatisfactory. The article could not be accepted for publication. 24 articles contained grammatical and stylistic errors in the English version. The authors of these articles were encouraged to correct the corresponding inaccuracies. After the changes were made, 24 articles were accepted for publication. 19 and 20 criteria “CONCLUSION” and “OVERALL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT”. According to this criterion, 63 articles were recommended for publication by the editors. Of these, 41 articles were required to be revised. The editors rejected 57 articles. Contact person for queries: Name: Oleg V. Korsun, Ph. D. (Biol.) Affiliation: Institute of Natural Resources, Ecology and Cryology SB RAS Email: [email protected]

scholarly journals Improving Submissions to Scholarly Journals via Peer Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-9
Author(s):  
Elena Tikhonova ◽  
Lilia Raitskaya
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Academic Reputation ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Language And Education

Due to their commitment to better publishing standards and desire to improve their journals’ academic reputation, editorial boards, editors, and editorial teams seek to refine submissions they receive. Though, the peer review process serves as a filtering and assessment system, it is believed to greatly contribute to better quality of scholarly journals. Based on the analysis of the peer review internationally, the JLE editors focus on the peer review in the Journal of Language and Education, sharing their experience with the JLE potential authors. The editorial contains some reflections on the efficacy of peer review in the JLE. Potential authors may find some tips as to how to interact with recommendations and criticism on part of their peer reviewers and to make their voices heard.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2059 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Saint Petersburg ◽  
Email Address ◽  
Mail Address ◽  
E Mail ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

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 • Conference submission management system: Through official e-mail address ([email protected]) • Number of submissions received: 34 • Number of submissions sent for review: 30 • Number of submissions accepted: 30 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 88 % • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 10 • Any additional info on review process: All submitted papers were preliminary evaluated for compliance with the topic of the conference and the quality of the paper preparation, after that the remaining papers went through single-blind peer review, with each paper sent to two reviewers for evaluation. • Contact person for queries (please include: name, affiliation, institutional email address) Dmitrii Kostrin Saint Petersburg Electrotechnical University “LETI” [email protected]

Letter to the Editor: The Continuing Challenge of Evaluating RSD Impairment and Disability

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 8-10
Author(s):  
Robert L. Knobler ◽  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
Leon H. Ensalada ◽  
James B. Talmage ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Disability Evaluation ◽  
Body Part ◽  
Loss Of Function ◽  
Regulatory Requirements ◽  
Major Cardiac Event ◽  
Clinical Scenarios ◽  
Impairment Score ◽  
Occupational Activities ◽  
The Difference

Abstract The author of the two-part article about evaluating reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) responds to criticisms that a percentage impairment score may not adequately reflect the disability of an individual with RSD. The author highlights the importance of recognizing the difference between impairment and disability in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides): impairment is the loss, loss of use, or derangement of any body part, system, or function; disability is a decrease in or the loss or absence of the capacity to meet personal, social, or occupational demands or to meet statutory or regulatory requirements because of an impairment. The disparity between impairment and disability can be encountered in diverse clinical scenarios. For example, a person's ability to resume occupational activities following a major cardiac event depends on medical, social, and psychological factors, but nonmedical factors appear to present the greatest impediment and many persons do not resume work despite significant improvements in functional capacity. A key requirement according to the AMA Guides is objective documentation, and the author agrees that when physicians consider the disability evaluation of people, more issues than those relating to the percentage loss of function should be considered. More study of the relationships among impairment, disability, and quality of life in patients with RSD are required.

COMBINATORIAL POLYNOMIALLY COMPUTABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBSTITUTIONS AND THEIR PROPERTIES

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 34-41
Author(s):  
VLADIMIR NIKONOV ◽  
◽  
ANTON ZOBOV ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Mathematical Expectation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Small Range ◽  
Computational Point ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Bijective Function ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Element Base ◽  
Selection Of

The construction and selection of a suitable bijective function, that is, substitution, is now becoming an important applied task, particularly for building block encryption systems. Many articles have suggested using different approaches to determining the quality of substitution, but most of them are highly computationally complex. The solution of this problem will significantly expand the range of methods for constructing and analyzing scheme in information protection systems. The purpose of research is to find easily measurable characteristics of substitutions, allowing to evaluate their quality, and also measures of the proximity of a particular substitutions to a random one, or its distance from it. For this purpose, several characteristics were proposed in this work: difference and polynomial, and their mathematical expectation was found, as well as variance for the difference characteristic. This allows us to make a conclusion about its quality by comparing the result of calculating the characteristic for a particular substitution with the calculated mathematical expectation. From a computational point of view, the thesises of the article are of exceptional interest due to the simplicity of the algorithm for quantifying the quality of bijective function substitutions. By its nature, the operation of calculating the difference characteristic carries out a simple summation of integer terms in a fixed and small range. Such an operation, both in the modern and in the prospective element base, is embedded in the logic of a wide range of functional elements, especially when implementing computational actions in the optical range, or on other carriers related to the field of nanotechnology.

ACADEMY Journal 7(9), 2018

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liudmila Vyacheslavovna Fomina ◽  
Саидова Феруза Бахтияровна
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Open File ◽  
Specific Research ◽  
Blind Review

"Journal of the Academy" isan international,peerreviewedmonthly journal. It is dedicated tothe publication of original scientific articles invarious academic disciplines.Articles that may be of interest to a wide rangeof researchers, welcome, and are not limited tothose who work on specific research subjects."Journal of the Academy" has an open file,according to which the published articles areavailable immediately after its publication, withthe exception of the embargo.ExpertiseThe magazine has a blind review process. Allarticles will initially be evaluated by the editor tomatch the magazine. The manuscripts that areconsidered suitable, are usually sent at leasttwo independent experts to evaluate thescientific quality of the article. The editor isresponsible for the final decision on whether toaccept or reject the article. Editor's decision isfinal.

THE INFLUENCE OF TILLAGE SYSTEMS ON THE GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND YIELD OF LONG-FLAX

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Dumych ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Growth And Development ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Conservation Tillage ◽  
Mineral Fertilizers ◽  
Tillage Systems ◽  
Yield And Quality ◽  
Tillage System ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Flax Seeds

The purpose of research: to improve the technology of growing flax in the Western region of Ukraine on the basis of the introduction of systems for minimizing tillage, which will increase the yield of trusts and seeds. Research methods: field, laboratory, visual and comparative calculation method. Research results: Field experiments included the study of three tillage systems (traditional, canning and mulching) and determining their impact on growth and development and yields of trusts and flax seeds. The traditional tillage system included the following operations: plowing with a reversible plow to a depth of 27 cm, cultivation with simultaneous harrowing and pre-sowing tillage. The conservation system is based on deep shelfless loosening of the soil and provided for chiseling to a depth of 40 cm, disking to a depth of 15 cm, cultivation with simultaneous harrowing, pre-sowing tillage. During the implementation of the mulching system, disking to a depth of 15 cm, cultivation with simultaneous harrowing and pre-sowing tillage with a combined unit was carried out. Tillage implements and machines were used to perform tillage operations: disc harrow BDVP-3,6, reversible plow PON-5/4, chisel PCh-3, cultivator KPSP-4, pre-sowing tillage unit LK-4. The SZ-3,6 ASTPA grain seeder was used for sowing long flax of the Kamenyar variety. Simultaneously with the sowing of flax seeds, local application of mineral fertilizers (nitroammophoska 2 c/ha) was carried out. The application of conservation tillage allows to obtain the yield of flax trust at the level of 3,5 t/ha, which is 0,4 t/ha (12.9 %) more than from the area of traditional tillage and 0,7 t/ha (25 %) in comparison with mulching. In the area with canning treatment, the seed yield was the highest and amounted to 0,64 t/ha. The difference between this option and traditional and mulching tillage reaches 0,06 t/ha (10,3 %) and 0.10 t/ha (18.5 %), respectively. Conclusions. Preservation tillage, which is based on shelf-free tillage to a depth of 40 cm and disking to a depth of 15 cm has a positive effect on plant growth and development, yield and quality of flax.

Pengaruh ovaprim, aromatase inhibitor, dan hipofisa terhadap kualitas telur ikan Lele Dumbo (Clarias gariepinus)

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Erwin A. Aziz ◽  
Ockstan Kalesaran
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Experimental Design ◽  
Aromatase Inhibitor ◽  
Fish Larvae ◽  
Clarias Gariepinus ◽  
Randomized Design ◽  
Completely Randomized Design ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Hatching Eggs

This study aimed to determine the effect of ovaprim hormone, aromatase inhibitor and pituitary on the quality of the catfish eggs (Clarias gariepinus). Experimental Design used was Completely Randomized Design (CRD) with four treatments, each with three replications. Treatment A: ovaprim; treatment B: Aromatase inhibitors, treatment C: hypophysis and treatment D: Control. The results showed that the difference in treatment gave highly significant effect on fertilization and hatching eggs but no significant effect on the survival rate of larvae. Aromatase inhibitor hormone was the best because it provided highly significant effect on fertilization (92.66%), hatchability of eggs (95%), and surviva rate (81.33%) of fish larvae.   Keywords : Clarias gariepinus. Ovaprim, Aromatase Inhibitor, Hypophysis, egg, larvae

Quality of Service through the Strategic Use of Technology

1996 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-110
Author(s):  
Wayne Myles
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Service ◽  
World Wide Web ◽  
World Wide ◽  
Information Sources ◽  
Communication Patterns ◽  
Home Pages ◽  
Use Of Technology ◽  
E Mail

We live under the spectre of never quite getting beyond the last upgrade in our array of new electronic tools. We have become unwittingly tied to an ever-increasing set of demands to learn, relearn, and apply the latest addition to our technological inventory. The advent of e-mail has compressed communication patterns, committing us to “immediate” responses. World Wide Web home pages explode information sources, leaving us floundering for the best hypertext link to follow. Computer databases spin out reports on every imaginable aspect of our work.  How do we feel about our new status as “electronic advisors”? How is our interaction with students faring in all of this? Have we been able to secure more time for students to draw on our experience and knowledge through these labor-saving devices? What has happened to our priorities? Has quality of service to the students kept abreast with the demands of processing ever-increasing amounts of information? 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document