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.

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.

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 Uptake and Impact of a Label for Peer-Reviewed Books

2022 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eline Vandewalle ◽  
Raf Guns ◽  
Tim C. E. Engels
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Formal System ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
Funding System ◽  
The Social ◽  
Book Publishers

This article presents an analysis of the uptake of the GPRC label (Guaranteed Peer Reviewed Content label) since its introduction in 2010 until 2019. GPRC is a label for books that have been peer reviewed introduced by the Flemish publishers association. The GPRC label allows locally published scholarly books to be included in the regional database for the Social Sciences and Humanities which is used in the Flemish performance-based research funding system. Ten years after the start of the GPRC label, this is the first systematic analysis of the uptake of the label. We use a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods. Our two main data sources are the Flemish regional database for the Social Sciences and Humanities, which currently includes 2,580 GPRC-labeled publications, and three interviews with experts on the GPRC label. Firstly, we study the importance of the label in the Flemish performance-based research funding system. Secondly, we analyse the label in terms of its possible effect on multilingualism and the local or international orientation of publications. Thirdly, we analyse to what extent the label has been used by the different disciplines. Lastly, we discuss the potential implications of the label for the peer review process among book publishers. We find that the GPRC label is of limited importance to the Flemish performance-based research funding system. However, we also conclude that the label has a specific use for locally oriented book publications and in particular for the discipline Law. Furthermore, by requiring publishers to adhere to a formalized peer review procedure, the label affects the peer review practices of local publishers because not all book publishers were using a formal system of peer review before the introduction of the label and even at those publishers who already practiced peer review, the label may have required the publishers to make these procedures more uniform.

scholarly journals Editorial

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Sirkeci
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Border Crossing ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
Open Issue

On behalf of the editorial team of Border Crossing journal, I am pleased to introduce the first issue of the tenth volume. Border Crossing aims to offer a multidisciplinary venue for sharing interesting and novel research from any fields of Social Sciences and Humanities. The “open issue” model we have started last year seems appreciated by authors and readers as it allows us to release the articles once they are through the peer-review process and finalised without delay which is normally the case for most journals. In this issue, we bring four articles and a book review to you.

scholarly journals Open science in practice: 300 published research ideas and outcomes illustrate how RIO Journal facilitates engagement with the research process

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Mietchen ◽  
Lyubomir Penev ◽  
Teodor Georgiev ◽  
Boriana Ovcharova ◽  
Iva Kostadinova
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Societal Challenges ◽  
Research Cycle ◽  
Zoom In ◽  
Published Research

Since Research Ideas and Outcomes was launched in late 2015, it has stimulated experimentation around the publication of and engagement with research processes, especially those with a strong open science component. Here, we zoom in on the first 300 RIO articles that have been published and elucidate how they relate to the different stages and variants of the research cycle, how they help address societal challenges and what forms of engagement have evolved around these resources, most of which have a nature and scope that would prevent them from entering the scholarly record via more traditional journals. Building on these observations, we describe some changes we recently introduced in the policies and peer review process at RIO to further facilitate engagement with the research process, including the establishment of an article collections feature that allows us to bring together research ideas and outcomes from within one research cycle or across multiple ones, irrespective of where they have been published.

scholarly journals Through a Painted Window: On Narrative, Medicine, and Method Interview with Arthur W. Frank Conducted by the International Institute for Qualitative Methodology EQUIPP Students, November 16, 2005

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 121-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn P. Eldershaw ◽  
Maria Mayan ◽  
Anne Winkler
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Qualitative Methodology ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Narrative Medicine ◽  
International Institute ◽  
History Of Research ◽  
The Social ◽  
Practice Of Medicine ◽  
History Of

In a 2005 interview with doctoral and postdoctoral students Arthur W. Frank discusses a variety of topics related to qualitative research, such as methodology, narrative, power, rigor, and the peer review process. He reflects on his own work and the artists, philosophers and sociologists who have influenced him. He provides a selective history of research in the social sciences and discusses changes in health care and the practice of medicine.

scholarly journals A Guide to Preprinting for Early Career Researchers

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cassandra Lane Ettinger ◽  
Madhumala K. Sadanandappa ◽  
Kivanc Görgülü ◽  
Karen Coghlan ◽  
Kenneth K. Hallenbeck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Early Career Researchers

The use of preprints, research manuscripts shared publicly before the traditional peer review process, is becoming more common in the life sciences. Early career researchers (ECRs) benefit from posting preprints as they are shareable, citable, and prove productivity. However, the decision to preprint a manuscript involves a discussion among all co-authors, and ECRs are often not the decision-makers. Therefore, ECRs may find themselves in situations where they are interested in posting a preprint but are unsure how to approach their co-authors or advisor about preprinting. Leveraging our own experiences as ECRs, and feedback from the research community, we have constructed a guide for ECRs who are considering preprinting - to enable them to take ownership over the process, and to raise awareness about preprinting options. We hope that this guide helps ECRs to initiate conversations about preprinting with co-authors or consider whether to preprint their future research.

Practising Peer Review in Organizations: A Qualifier for Knowledge Dissemination and Legitimization

2001 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magnus Bergquist ◽  
Jan Ljungberg ◽  
Ulrika Lundh-Snis
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Knowledge Creation ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Knowledge Dissemination ◽  
Sense Making ◽  
Social Meaning ◽  
The Social ◽  
New Knowledge

A key issue in many organizations is how to disseminate information in an effective way and, more importantly, how to make use of this information in order to create new knowledge. One way of addressing this problem is to focus on how information is socially transformed into knowledge. This includes how knowledge is handled in practice and how the knowledge produced is qualified as being something worth knowing and acting upon. Two well-established practices for doing this are the refereeing system and the peer review process. These are used in scientific communities as a means of validating and legitimating knowledge, for example by reviewing journal papers before publishing or project proposals before granting funds, etc. This paper argues that peer review is a useful concept when looking at knowledge creation and legitimization in organizations. The social meaning of peer review is to legitimize new knowledge by organizationally sanctioning it and thereby creating a platform for collective sense making. This paper uses an example from a field study in a pharmaceutical company in order to illustrate this argument. The study took place in a quality support department where the quality of health care products and processes was assessed. The organization had a need for fast and reliable updating of information that could influence how the production process of pharmaceuticals should be carried out. In order to cope with these problems the department established an ‘evaluation loop’, which shared several characteristics with the peer review process.

scholarly journals Standardising Peer Review in Paleontology journals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Tennant
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Publishing Process ◽  
Review Articles ◽  
Quality Threshold ◽  
Published Research

The purpose of this operational checklist serves one primary purpose: For an article to 'pass' peer review, articles must satisfy a specific quality threshold based on standardised guidelines. Thus, the quality of the peer review process is simultaneously ensured through an open and technical standardisation process. This should be of interest to all stakeholders engaged in the publishing process, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publishers themselves, who all have a duty to uphold the integrity of the published research record. While it might initially increase the bureaucracy involved in publishing, ultimately it should save time and effort as it becomes more widely established as an embedded scholarly norm, with integrity a formative part of peer review culture.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document