The cornerstone of academic publishing is the peer review process. Typically it is “double-blind” — neither reviewers nor authors know who the other party is. While there is much to love and hate about peer review, here I will cover the pragmatics of receiving and responding to feedback. It may come in a day or six months.Prepare yourself for criticism, and don’t be frustrated if the reviews are phrased very directly. Feel free to set the email aside to read when you’re in a good mood and have time to think through their feedback. All these factors — impact, relevance, and open-access — should be part of your decision to publish with a journal.
In addition to assessing academic/scientific quality , some journals emphasize potential importance or impact, or newsworthiness . Although not formally published, student theses and dissertations may be available online via university libraries or national repositories. Generally in the UK, theses are what PhD candidates write and dissertations are what Master students write, but in the US, the terms are switched around.
What Andrew highlights here is the concern that the pre-publication review is of “lower quality”. I think we are witnessing the survivorship bias – in the conventional process the rejected papers do not get reviewed at all, so we don’t see at least half of the reviews. The second concern is that the lion’s share of reviews is actually done by a handful of scientists (Tennant & Ross-Hellauer, 2020). It’s not enough to just open the scope of scientific work which could be reviewed , it is also important to increase the pool of reviewers. The threat of retaliation by senior colleagues is still holding back many junior reviewers from entering the peer-review field.
Can a PhD student publish a review paper?
You see, PhD students have a habit of writing review papers. This is because most students have to write a ‘literature review’ which serves as the introduction to their PhD thesis, and this material can easily be converted into a review paper.
I’m not in biology so it may be different, but most journals in my field are free to publish in, with options to pay for open access. Seeing literature review in this way has three important implications for how we think about our literature review, and how we can design it to increase its chances of being interesting to others – that is, of being published. Powered by the Elsevier Fingerprint Engine™, Elsevier JournalFinder uses smart search technology and field-of-research-specific vocabularies to match your article to Elsevier journals. Activity Description For this assignment, identify an additional 3-5 related scholarly sources to eventually add to the synthesis of the literature review draft for a total of at least 15 peer-reviewed references. List each new source and briefly describe how and why it was added to the literature review draft. So I just thought having this knowledge equipped with me will be a good thing to have in preparation when I will start publishing and writing up my data.
- We have highly effective OA systems, and now offer more than 1,000 open access eBooks.
- When a preprint article has been subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal, authors should cite the subsequent published article rather than the preprint article whenever appropriate.
- Material that contains offensive language, non-scientific content, or is plagiarized may be removed.
- The only people who benefit from the intense pressure to publish are those in the publishing industry.
- The author responds to the copy editor’s queries and any other necessary corrections in an attachment in reply to the Journal’s proof email.
Learn more about your rights as a consumer and how to spot and avoid scams. Find the resources you need to understand how consumer protection law impacts your business. However, knowing the type of paper is not all that matters in a literatures paper, as I’ll go on to explain in the next instalment, next week. A requirement to submit both your data and code should be non-negotiable. I think many of us would be surprised, though, how much “and then I copy-pasted it into Excel and smeared the data around” happens. This topic, for how important it is, is nowhere near discussed enough.
If the final submission meets the Final Submission Requirements, the article will enter Copy Editing. All reviewers are carefully selected by the editorial staff to properly match areas of expertise. The “Highlights” tab on each journal’s home page lists all the features about articles and special collections. Read our policy on erratum or retraction corrections in AGU publications. Authors affirm the manuscript is not and will not be submitted anywhere else while under consideration by an AGU journal. Any parts taken from previously published content are appropriately referenced and quoted.
The possibility of rejections of papers is an important aspect in peer review. The evaluation of quality of journals is based also on rejection rate. The best journals have the highest rejection rates (around 90–95%).
Our first step towards our goal of exclusively reviewing preprints is to make the posting of preprints the default. If any paper we are planning to send out to peer review is not already on a preprint server, we will post it to bioRxiv or medRxiv on behalf of the authors. We expect that many of our authors who previously did not post preprints did so out of inertia rather than opposition, and will now do so. We are, in particular, ever mindful that the authors who enCreativeVietnam us to review their papers still have to operate in a world where journal citations are the currency of careers. Thus, while our long-term goal is to move science away from the use of journal titles as the primary measure of the quality of research, until an alternative takes hold, we will still be selecting papers to be “published” in eLife.
Editors and reviewers are fallible, and the journal peer review process is far too flimsy to live up to its reputation. It’s time we stop putting so much faith in journals, and look for more transparent and effective ways to peer review scientific claims. By posting your work prior to peer review, you can receive advice and comments on your paper that may help you improve your paper before submission, potentially making the peer review process go smoother and more quickly. Having your work read and possibly cited prior to peer review can help increase the visibility of the research and establish your claim to a novel finding without the delay of the traditional review process. The peer-review process leaves the fate of someone’s research findings subject to the whims of two or three people who, like all of us, are influenced by variables including their own natural preferences for certain kinds of work. And university settings and academic fields are not free of nepotism or quid pro quo networks that facilitate the publication of an in-crowd of popular researchers who, frankly, can tend to retread widely accepted arguments.
We actively use several subject-specific accounts on Facebook and Twitter. New releases and highlights are regularly communicated to more than 32,000 fans and followers via the De Gruyter social media platforms. Journal articles which might be of broader interest to the public are announced on Twitter and Facebook, and presented on our subject-specific blog De Gruyter Conversations. The De Gruyter website has undergone search engine optimization, meaning that your article will be easy to discover. We maintain close contact with various abstracting and indexing services.
Publishing in English matters in many countries where English is not an official or even widely spoken language. Academic discourses in many fields still implicitly work on assumptions of a core (call it Global North, Anglo-European, Western) and a periphery. I was reviewing a paper recently based in Turkey, and asked ‘Why Turkey’? But when I write about the UK or Australia (countries where I’ve lived and worked), this context seems automatically acceptable .
A member wishing to designate a submission for guaranteed review must start the submission using the “JCI family of journals” portal through the member’s ASCI account. Manuscripts submitted using the guaranteed review must fit within the scope of the Journal and will be held to the same standard for publication as other manuscripts considered by the Editorial Board. Note that the guaranteed external review option may not be used for manuscripts, in the same form or after revision, that have previously been rejected by the Journal. If an option is used for a new submission that is identified as a revision of a previous manuscript, the option will be removed from the submission and become available for use on a new submission.
Authors should be cautious about referencing preprints that were posted and never subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal, but the time interval of concern will vary depending on the topic and specific reasons for citation. Fee-based open access publishing has been criticized on quality grounds, as the desire to maximize publishing fees could cause some journals to relax the standard of peer review. Although, similar desire is also present in the subscription model, where publishers increase numbers or published articles in order to justify raising their fees. It may be criticized on financial grounds as well because the necessary publication or subscription fees have proven to be higher than originally expected. Open access advocates generally reply that because open access is as much based on peer reviewing as traditional publishing, the quality should be the same . In any case, all authors have the option of self-archiving their articles in their institutional repositories or disciplinary repositories in order to make them open access, whether or not they publish them in a journal.
JYI is a student-led initiative to broaden the undergraduate scientific experience, allowing students to participate in the scientific review and publication processes of its peer-reviewed undergraduate journal. Incorporated as a non-profit, student-run corporation, JYI represents over 50 different academic institutions from over half a dozen countries. JYI is dedicated to representing undergraduate research in biological/biomedical sciences, physical sciences, mathematics and engineering, psychology and social sciences.
A secondary benefit of the process is an indirect guard against plagiarism since reviewers are usually familiar with the sources consulted by the author. The origins of routine peer review for submissions dates to 1752 when the Royal Society of London took over official responsibility for Philosophical Transactions. Here we detail changes to eLife policy and practice that are the first major steps in this process.
Learn about each journal’s topics, impact and submission policies. Hi, if you handled the paper alone there is no need for a different authour as corresponding authour. Sole authour is allowed provided it is only you that worked and prepared the paper.
With recent advances in commercial space exploration, we have curated a list of our best Research Topics on outer space. Explore collections edited by experts from NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, European Space Agency and many more. A new research platform exploring how our lifestyle, genetics and the environment can affect our digestive health and the complex causes of gastrointestinal conditions. Research in Quantum Science and Technology aims to solve societal challenges by improving the quality of life via developments in the areas of computing, communications, sensing and imaging. With collective views of over 3.7 million, researchers explored topics spanning from nutritional immunology and political misinformation to sustainable agriculture and the human-dog bond.
Manuscripts describing primary results of nonregistered trials will be turned away prior to peer review. Authors should remove information from photographs and manuscripts that might identify a patient. Where this is impossible, submissions must be accompanied by a written release from the patient.
Authors are encouraged to add a biography to the submission and publish it. A Comprehensive Guide to Science Communication is a free resource available to read and use by anyone, anywhere in the world that can serve as a tool for you to increase visibility and thus maximize the impact of your work. A study of children receiving an intravenous catheter finds that the presence of a socially assistive robot, which has been programmed to show…
How to pitch a Review idea – Nature.com
How to pitch a Review idea.
Posted: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 13:04:52 GMT [source]
Process centers on a topic of contemporary interest to a global audience, fostering critical conversations that traverse disciplinary, cultural, and national borders. We believe that undergraduate projects deserve serious attention, and hope to encourage all undergrads to begin forging new pathways for the future of academic and public scholarship. For more information aboutPLOS ONErequirements for data sharing and deposition in public databases, see our data availability policy. For more details about PLOS ONE’s expectations for publication ethics, see theEditorial Policies. Learn how to post a preprint to bioRxiv duringPLOS ONEinitial submission. I wonder if one useful thing you could maybe do apart from boycotting Elsevier is to become an editor of one of these journals and try to institute change from the inside, at least in some of the practices that are problematic.
The online distribution of inCreativeVietnam dual articles and academic journals then takes place without charge to readers and libraries. Most open access journals remove all the financial, technical, and legal barriers that limit access to academic materials to paying customers. The Public Library of Science and BioMed Central are prominent examples of this model. Publishing in the social sciences is very different in different fields. Some fields, like economics, may have very “hard” or highly quanCreativeVietnam tive standards for publication, much like the natural sciences. Others, like anthropology or sociology, emphasize field work and reporting on first-hand observation as well as quanCreativeVietnam tive work.
Income generated by the Editor’s immediate family members (spouse and/or children) is included. Authors of new submissions that contain cropped gels/blots are encouraged, but not required, to submit a file that contains the entire unedited gel for all representative cropped gels in the submission. Each gel should be annotated as “Full unedited gel for Figure ,” and the authors should highlight which lanes of the unedited gel correspond to those shown in the cropped images within the manuscript. This file should be separate from the primary submission PDF and distinct from any other supplemental data provided.
Visit our author hub to learn more about our waivers policy and how to request one. If it does, then this may cover all or part of the APC for your article. Check BMJ’s open access agreements page to find out whether your institution is a member and what discounts you may be entitled to. AIP Publishing LLC. Article copyright remains as specified within the article. Please be sure to cite all multimedia files in the text, referred to by their figure number. Ensure that descriptions of figures in text will be sufficiently clear for both print and online versions.
Others might ask you to do seemingly impossible tasks, like collect new data or re-write your paper using unfamiliar theory. A good editor will provide some guidance on the path to acceptance. It can be difficult to read unvarnished comments about an article you’ve put so much time into. It is sometimes difficult not to take feedback personally, but just remember that reviewers will evaluate your work on factors that you may not have considered. They may misunderstand your primary argument, or have never evaluated an article that uses your chosen methodology. Reviewers are fellow humans who just happen to be gatekeepers to your article getting published.
I can’t say that I’ve seen any signs of positive change lately, no. Some of the things I mentioned in my list (e.g., buying SSRN and selling other people’s articles) have happened in the last few months. I’ve seen nothing to suggest any serious commitment to any openness of a kind that actually benefits scientists. Lastly, you could always just bite the bullet and cut all ties with Elsevier. Again, I recognize that not everyone is in a position to do this.
Prof. Stefano Omboni graduated with distinction in medicine at the University of Milan in 1988 and later specialized in cardiology at the same University in 1992. He is an expert in the areas of blood pressure monitoring, telemonitoring, arterial hypertension, cardiovascular disease and telemedicine. His expertise also extends to clinical physiology and pharmacology.
Bankrate follows a strict editorial policy, so you can CreativeVietnam that we’re putting your interests first. If the value of the employee’s Bitcoin compensation ultimately falls below the required pay thresholds, the employer is at risk of violating the wage laws. For both overtime-eligible and exempt employees, this can expose the employer to claims for unpaid wages, which can include claims for liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees. Just because a platform offers a feature like that is no guarantee it’s an effective way for influencers to disclose their material connection to a brand. It still depends on an evaluation of whether the tool clearly and conspicuously discloses the relevant connection.