Accepting a peer review invitation: Tips for first-time peer reviewers

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kakoli Majumder
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
First Time

Thank you to our 2019 peer review panel

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 90-90
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Important Work ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Review Panel ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Time Out ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
First Time

The following people have generously taken time out of their demanding work and personal schedules to volunteer as peer reviewers for International Paramedic Practice. For the first time, we are publishing a list of our peer review panel for the year as a small way of offering our sincere grattitude for the extremely important work they do, without which we could not produce high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed content for our readers every quarter. Our peer reviewers are highly valued members of our editorial team. We are grateful for the time, energy, expert knowledge and insight that goes into their constructive comments, which improve the research and writing of our authors, and which help us to publish only those articles that are up to standard and that contribute in some meaningful way to the existing literature.

scholarly journals ISMB 2003 Bio-ontologies SIG and Sixth Annual Bio-ontologies Meeting Report

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 663-666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip Lord ◽  
Robert Stevens
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
Text Analysis ◽  
Special Interest ◽  
Text Processing ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Meeting Report ◽  
The Many ◽  
First Time

The Annual Bio-Ontologies meeting (http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/˜stevens/meeting03/) has now been running for 6 consecutive years, as a special interest group (SIG) of the much larger ISMB conference. It met in Brisbane, Australia, this summer, the first time it was held outside North America or Europe. The bio-ontologies meeting is 1 day long and normally has around 100 attendees. This year there were many fewer, no doubt a result of the distance, global politics and SARS. The meeting consisted of a series of 30 min talks with no formal peer review or publication. Talks ranged in style from fairly formal and complete pieces of work, through works in progress, to the very informal and discursive. Each year's meeting has a theme and this year it was ‘ontologies, and text processing’. There is a tendency for those submitting talks to ignore the theme completely, but this year's theme obviously struck a chord, as half the programme was about ontologies and text analysis (http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/˜stevensr/meeting03/programme.html). Despite the smaller size of the meeting, the programme was particularly strong this year, meaning that the tension between allowing time for the many excellent talks, discussion and questions from the floor was particular keenly felt. A happy problem to have!

scholarly journals Evaluating, Improving, and Appreciating Peer Review at IJTMB

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Ann Blair Kennedy, LMT, BCTMB, DrPH
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Improve Efficiency ◽  
Peer Reviewers

  Peer review is a mainstay of scientific publishing and, while peer reviewers and scientists report satisfaction with the process, peer review has not been without criticism. Within this editorial, the peer review process at the IJTMB is defined and explained. Further, seven steps are identified by the editors as a way to improve efficiency of the peer review and publication process. Those seven steps are: 1) Ask authors to submit possible reviewers; 2) Ask reviewers to update profiles; 3) Ask reviewers to “refer a friend”; 4) Thank reviewers regularly; 5) Ask published authors to review for the Journal; 6) Reduce the length of time to accept peer review invitation; and 7) Reduce requested time to complete peer review. We believe these small requests and changes can have a big effect on the quality of reviews and speed in which manuscripts are published. This manuscript will present instructions for completing peer review profiles. Finally, we more formally recognize and thank peer reviewers from 2018–2020.

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 Metascience on Peer Review: Testing the Effects of a Study’s Originality and Statistical Significance in a Field Experiment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malte Elson ◽  
Markus Huff ◽  
Sonja Utz
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiment ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Selection Method ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Peer review has become the gold standard in scientific publishing as a selection method and a refinement scheme for research reports. However, despite its pervasiveness and conferred importance, relatively little empirical research has been conducted to document its effectiveness. Further, there is evidence that factors other than a submission’s merits can substantially influence peer reviewers’ evaluations. We report the results of a metascientific field experiment on the effect of the originality of a study and the statistical significance of its primary outcome on reviewers’ evaluations. The general aim of this experiment, which was carried out in the peer-review process for a conference, was to demonstrate the feasibility and value of metascientific experiments on the peer-review process and thereby encourage research that will lead to understanding its mechanisms and determinants, effectively contextualizing it in psychological theories of various biases, and developing practical procedures to increase its utility.

scholarly journals High adoption rates in a new preprint service from Springer Nature and Research Square

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damian Pattinson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Manuscript Reviewer ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Gates Foundation

In recent years, funders have increased their support for early sharing of biomedical research through the use of preprints. For most, such as the COAlitionS group of funders (ASAPbio 2019) and the Gates foundation, this takes the form of active encouragement, while for others, it is mandated. But despite these motivations, few authors are routinely depositing their work as a preprint before submitting to a journal. Some journals have started offering authors the option of posting their work early at the point at which it is submitted for review. These include PLOS, who offer a link to BiorXiv, the Cell journals, who offer SSRN posting through ‘Sneak Peak’, and Nature Communications, who offer posting to any preprint and a link from the journal page called ‘Under Consideration’. Uptake has ranged from 3% for the Nature pilot, to 18% for PLOS (The Official Plos Blog 2018). In order to encourage more researchers to post their work early, we have been offering authors who submit to BMC Series titles the opportunity to post their work as a preprint on Research Square, a new platform that lets authors share and improve their research. To encourage participation, authors are offered a greater amount of control and transparency over the peer review process if they opt in. First, they are given a detailed peer review timeline which updates in real time every time an event occurs on their manuscript (reviewer invited, reviewer accepts etc). Second, they are encouraged to share their preprint with colleagues, who are able to post comments on the paper. These comments are sent to the editor when they are making their decision. Third, authors can suggest potential peer reviewers, recommendations which are also passed onto the editor to vet and invite. Together, these incentives have had a positive impact on authors choosing to post a preprint. Among the journals that offer this service, the average opt-in rate is 40%. This translates to over 3,000 manuscripts (as of July 2019) that have been posted to Research Square since the launch of the service in October 2018. In this talk I will demonstrate the functionality of Research Square, and provide demographic and discipline data on which areas are most and least likely to post.

scholarly journals Colorectal cancer in the world: incidence, mortality and risk factors

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (10) ◽  
pp. 1656 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamidreza Sadeghi Gandomani ◽  
Seyed Majid Yousefi ◽  
Mohammad Aghajani ◽  
Abdollah Mohammadian-Hafshejani ◽  
Abed Asgari Tarazoj ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Medical History ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
The World ◽  
Peer Reviewers

A rapid literature search strategy was conducted for all English language literature published before July 2017. The search was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. The search strategy included the keywords ‘colorectal cancer’, ‘epidemiology’, ‘incidence’, ‘mortality’, ‘risk factor’, and ‘world’. In 2012, the highest CRC incidence rates were observed in the Republic of Korea, Slovakia and Hungary while the lowest incidence rates were seen in Singapore, Serbia and Japan. The highest CRC mortality rates in both sexes were seen in Central and Eastern Europe and the lowest mortality rates were found in Middle Division of Africa. The main risk factors for CRC include nutritional factors, past medical history, smoking, socioeconomic status, and family medical history. According to the increasing trend of CRC incidence and mortality in the world, implementation of prevention programs such as screening programs, diet modification, and healthy lifestyle education is necessary. Peer Review Details Peer review method: Single-Blind (Peer-reviewers: 02) Peer-review policy Plagiarism software screening?: Yes Date of Original Submission: 26 August 2017 Date accepted: 20 Sept 2017 Peer reviewers approved by: Dr. Lili Hami Editor who approved publication: Dr. Phuc Van Pham  

scholarly journals Indigenous Knowledges and Scholarly Publishing

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-40
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Boyd
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Sound Source ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
White Male ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Intended Purpose ◽  
Peer Reviewers

At its core, academic knowledge production is predicated on Western notions of knowledge historically grounded in a Euro-American, White, male worldview. As a component of academic knowledge production, scholarly publishing shares the same basis of Whiteness. It excludes knowledge that doesn’t conform to White, Western notions of knowledge, forces conformity to (and therefore reinforcement of) a Western standard of writing/knowledge, and leads to a reverence of peer-reviewed literature as the only sound source of knowledge. As a tool of scholarly publishing and the editorial process, blind peer review, though perhaps well-intentioned, is fraught with problems, especially for BIPOC researchers and writers, because it fails in its intended purpose to drastically reduce or eliminate bias and racism in the peer review and editorial processes; shields peer reviewers and editors against accusations of bias, racism, or conflicts of interest; and robs BIPOC, and particularly Indigenous, writers and researchers from having the opportunity to develop relationships with those that are reviewing and publishing their work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document