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 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.

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 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 Open text editing tools for open scholarly communications

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Wilm
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Integrated System ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Social ◽  
Scholarly Communications

Scholarly communication is undergoing a revolution with the move to open access. This has opened new opportunities and also new challenges. One of the most problematic issues are the costs of publishing. Some of this may be excessive profits of some publishers, but another part are actual costs associated with typesetting and document conversion.In 2012, the open source Fidus Writer editor was born with the vision of creating a fully web-based semantic editor for academics that would not require manual typesetting after the authors are finished with their text. Since 2015 the GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences and University of Bonn have been working on the “Open Scholarly Communications in the Social Sciences” project. The project is financed by the German Research Foundation, DFG, and it has been enhancing Fidus Writer and connecting it with a number of other tools, such as citation databases for automatic citation retrieval and the Open Journals Systems (OJS) to offer an integrated peer-review process. The aim is to create a fully integrated system for social Scientists and others that does away with conversion steps and makes scientific text creation both less costly and improves the tools available, also for non-technically inclined users.While several other projects have come into being simultaneously with Fidus Writer, their focus has been somewhat different: ShareLatex/Overleaf have focused on LaTeX users and is therefore not suitable for scientists who do not code. Other editors are either not open source, not working as collaborative editors or do not provide the tools needed by humanists and social scientists.We have written several papers collaboratively using our combined tool that have been submitted and published and are now working with two journals to obtain real-world experience using Fidus Writer with social scientists in the journal peer review process. In this poster I would like to present the current status of our tool and project.

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.

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?

The Peer-Review Process for Articles in Iran's Scientific Journals

2011 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Abooyee Ardakan ◽  
Seyyed Ayatollah Mirzaie ◽  
Fatemeh Sheikhshoaei
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals

scholarly journals Ethics in Ethnobiology Publication

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 96-97
Author(s):  
James R. Welch
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Multiple Stakeholders ◽  
The Social ◽  
Cumulative Process ◽  
High Standards ◽  
Published Research

With the recent multiplication of traditional and electronic venues for publishing in ethnobiology, the social sciences, the life sciences, and related fields, it is increasingly important that authors practice self-diligence to ensure that the contents of their publications meet criteria of veracity and ethical soundness. Although the peer-review process encourages high standards, it is an insufficient means for verifying the ethical worthiness of most publications. The ethical merits of published research derive from a cumulative process including formulating a research design, obtaining permissions, collecting and analyzing data, and finally composing and submitting a manuscript. Unfortunately, there is no failsafe ethical gatekeeper at any stage of the process. The importance of ethical publishing is all the more important in the field of ethnobiology, as professionals in the field  often cross the intellectual and methodological boundaries between disciplines, and their research often involves multiple stakeholders in widespread jurisdictions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document