scholarly journals Open Code and Peer Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Eglen ◽  
Erik Lieungh
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Applied Mathematics ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Theoretical Physics ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
University Of Cambridge ◽  
The University

In this episode, we are talking about code and the benefits of making your code available in a peer review process and having it checked. Our guest is Dr. Stephen Eglen from the department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. Together with Dr. Daniel Nüst, from the University of Münster, he has created CodeCheck – an Open Science initiative to facilitate the sharing of computer programs and results presented in scientific publications. The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh. This episode was first published 20 January 2020.

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.

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 Preface

2021 ◽  
Vol 1193 (1) ◽  
pp. 011001
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Materials Science ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Science And Engineering ◽  
Engineering Society ◽  
Materials Science And Engineering ◽  
Ninth Edition ◽  
Manufacturing Engineering ◽  
The University

As the Chairman of the 9th edition of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference (MESIC 2021) held in Gijόn (Spain) from 23 to 25 of June 2021, I have the honour to present the papers discussed at the conference by researchers and professionals from 18 different countries. This ninth edition was organized by the Manufacturing Engineering Area of the University of Oviedo on behalf of the Manufacturing Engineering Society (SIF). The conference was first held in Calatayud (Spain) in 2005, with the main objective of becoming a forum for the exchange of experiences between national and international researchers and professionals in the field of Manufacturing Engineering. The rest of the editions have been celebrated up to now with this same vocation. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (MSE) publishes here the 140 papers, organised according to the topics of the Conference, that were finally accepted for presentation at the MESIC 2021 after a rigorous peer review process. List of Committees Organizing Committee, Scientific Committee, Editors, Organizer, Promoter and Sponsors and this titles are available in this pdf.

scholarly journals Online Journals: the Path Towards Visibility and Quality

1970 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 175-184
Author(s):  
Julie Walker
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Online Journal ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Virtuous Cycle ◽  
Journal Visibility

Increasing the visibility of a journal is the key to increasing quality. The International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications works with journal editors in the global South to publish their journals online and to increase the efficiency of the peer review process. Editors are trained in using the Open Journals System software and in online journal management and strategy so they have the tools and knowledge needed to initiate a ‘virtuous cycle' in which visibility leads to an increase in the number and quality of submissions and in turn, increased citations and impact. In order to maximise this increase in quality, it must be supported by strong editorial office processes and management. This article describes some of the issues and strategies faced by the editors INASP works with, placing a particular emphasis on Nepal Journals Online. Key words: INASP; Open Journals System; Journals Online Projects; Nepal Journals Online; journal visibility; peer review DOI: 10.3126/dsaj.v3i0.2786 Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol.3 2009 175-184

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 The Problem with Peer Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bård Smedsrød ◽  
Erik Lieungh
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Individual Researcher ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Publishing Houses ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The University ◽  
Insight Into

In this episode professor at UIT - The Arctic University of Norway, Bård Smedsrød, gives us an insight into peer review. How does the system work today, and what's problematic with it? Smedsrød also offers some solutions and encourages Universities to be much more involved in the peer review process. The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh. You can also read Bård's latest paper on peer reviewing: Peer reviewing: a private affair between the individual researcher and the publishing houses, or responsibility of the university? This episode was first published 2 November 2018.

scholarly journals Using Wikipedia to teach scholarly peer review

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 178
Author(s):  
Paul Anthony Thomas ◽  
Matthew F Jones ◽  
Spencer G Mattingly
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
University Of Kansas ◽  
Related Literature ◽  
Biology Department ◽  
The World ◽  
The University

This paper outlines a creative Wikipedia-based project developed by the University of Kansas (KU) Libraries and the KU Biology Department. Inspired by the tenets of open pedagogy, the purpose of this project is to use Wikipedia as a way for students to learn about the scholarly peer review process while also producing material that can be shared and used by the world outside the classroom. The paper is divided into three sections, with the first summarizing pertinent related literature related to the paper’s topic. From here, the paper describes the proposed assignment, detailing a process wherein students write new articles for the encyclopedia which are then anonymously peer reviewed by other students in the class; when articles are deemed acceptable, they are published via Wikipedia. The parallels between this project and academic peer review are emphasized throughout. The paper closes by discussing the importance of this project, arguing that it fills a known scholarly need, actively produces knowledge, furthers the aims of the open access movement, and furthers scientific outreach initiatives.

scholarly journals Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of PeerJ Authors and Reviewers

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 60-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peiling Wang ◽  
Sukjin You ◽  
Rath Manasa ◽  
Dietmar Wolfram
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Web Mining ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Current Characteristics ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Analytical Tools

AbstractPurposeTo understand how authors and reviewers are accepting and embracing Open Peer Review (OPR), one of the newest innovations in the Open Science movement.Design/methodology/approachThis research collected and analyzed data from the Open Access journal PeerJ over its first three years (2013–2016). Web data were scraped, cleaned, and structured using several Web tools and programs. The structured data were imported into a relational database. Data analyses were conducted using analytical tools as well as programs developed by the researchers.FindingsPeerJ, which supports optional OPR, has a broad international representation of authors and referees. Approximately 73.89% of articles provide full review histories. Of the articles with published review histories, 17.61% had identities of all reviewers and 52.57% had at least one signed reviewer. In total, 43.23% of all reviews were signed. The observed proportions of signed reviews have been relatively stable over the period since the Journal’s inception.Research limitationsThis research is constrained by the availability of the peer review history data. Some peer reviews were not available when the authors opted out of publishing their review histories. The anonymity of reviewers made it impossible to give an accurate count of reviewers who contributed to the review process.Practical implicationsThese findings shed light on the current characteristics of OPR. Given the policy that authors are encouraged to make their articles’ review history public and referees are encouraged to sign their review reports, the three years of PeerJ review data demonstrate that there is still some reluctance by authors to make their reviews public and by reviewers to identify themselves.Originality/valueThis is the first study to closely examine PeerJ as an example of an OPR model journal. As Open Science moves further towards open research, OPR is a final and critical component. Research in this area must identify the best policies and paths towards a transparent and open peer review process for scientific communication.

scholarly journals New currents in the research on esotericism and mysticism

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maarit Leskelä-Kärki ◽  
Tiina Mahlamäki
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Cultural Influences ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
The University

The current 29th volume of Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis is based on a symposium arranged by the Donner Institute and the research project ‘Seekers of the New: Esotericism and the Transformation of Religiosity in the Modernising Finland’ at the University of Turku in June 2017, under the title: ‘Approaching Esotericism and Mysticism: Cultural Influences’. All the articles published in this volume were initially presented as papers at this conference and have, through a double-blind peer-review process, been selected for this volume.

Responsibilities, Opportunities, and Challenges for Human Factors in the Digital Age

2022 ◽  
pp. 001872082110704
Author(s):  
Robert G. Radwin
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Good Judgment ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Quality Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Reliable Source ◽  
Source Of Information ◽  
Scientific Standards

Today’s challenges for scientific publications require operating at a time when trust in science depends upon effective vetting of data, identifying questionable practices, and scrutinizing research. The Editor-in-Chief has an invaluable opportunity to influence the direction and reputation of our field but also has the responsibility to confront contemporary trends that threaten the publication of quality research. The editor is responsible for maintaining strict scientific standards for the journal through the exercise of good judgment and steadfast commitment to upholding the highest ethical principles. Opportunities exist to create and implement new initiatives for improving the peer review process and elevating the journal’s stature. The journal must address the challenges as well as effectively communicate with the public, who seek a reliable source of information.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document