Search

Until recently, some fields of social sciences and humanities have developed without peer-review (PR) systems. Since the introduction of the PR system, non-peer-reviewed studies have been widely published and different publication patterns have emerged between peer-reviewed (PRd) and non-peer-reviewed (NPRd) articles. This study examines the patterns of PRd and NPRd papers in political science journals in Japan. According to this study’s analysis, PRd papers are mainly published by young researchers in their thirties. As researchers age, the proportion of PRd papers they publish decreases. The life cycle pattern of a researcher is structured regardless of the journals or the research methods. If the generalized norms and patterns of behavior related to PR are referred to as the PR culture, then there is the PR culture in this field that determines, “PR is a young person’s game.” Here, the PR system is expected not only to evaluate research content but also to assess newcomers in the field.

Retracted publications are a crucial, yet overlooked, issue in the scientific community. The purpose of this study was to analyze the prevalence, characteristics and reasons of Malaysian retracted papers. The Web of Science and Scopus databases were queried to identify Malaysian retracted publications. Available versions of original articles and publication notices were accessed from journal websites. The publications were assessed for various characteristics, including reason for retraction, based on the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines, and the authority calling for the retractions. From 2009 to June 2017, 125 Malaysian publications comprising (33 journal articles and 92 conference papers) were retracted. There was a spike in the prevalence of retracted articles in 2010 and 2012 with 42 articles (33.6%) and 41 articles (32.8%) respectively from the 125 retracted articles. The mean time from electronic publication to retraction was 1 year. There is no significant relationship between a journal quartile and the mean number of months to retraction (P = 0.842). The reason for retraction for conference papers was specified as “violation of publication principle”. Journal articles were retracted mainly for duplicate publication, plagiarism, compromised peer review process, and self-plagiarism. Most retracted articles do not contain flawed data; and only 2 retracted articles have been accused of scientific mistakes. The study concludes that retractions were mostly due to the authors misconduct. Despite the increases, the proportion of published scholarly literature affected by retraction remains very small, indicating that retraction represents an uncommon, yet potentially increasing and incipient, issue within Malaysian papers, which publishers as well as editors may have consistently and sufficiently addressed.

In naturally occurring numbers the frequencies of digits 1–9 in the leading position are counterintuitively distributed because the frequencies of occurrence are unequal. Benford-Newcomb’s law describes the expected distribution of these frequencies. It was previously shown that known fraudulent articles consistently violated this law. To compare the features of 12 known fraudulent articles from a single Japanese author to the features of 13 articles in the same research field from other Japanese authors, published during the same time period and identified with a Medline database search. All 25 articles were assessed to determine whether the data violated the law. Formulas provided by the law were used to determine the frequencies of occurrence for the first two leading digits in manually extracted numbers. It was found that all the known fraudulent papers violated the law and 6 of the 13 articles used for comparison followed the law. Assuming that the articles in the comparison group were not falsified or fabricated, the sensitivity of assessing articles with Benford-Newcomb’s law was 100% (95% confidence interval CI: 73.54–100%) but the specificity was only 46.15% (95% CI: 19.22–74.87%) and the positive predictive value was 63.16% (95% CI: 38.36–83.71%). All 12 of the known falsified articles violated Benford-Newcomb’s law, which indicated that this analysis had a high sensitivity. The low specificity of the assessment may be explained by the assumptions made about the articles identified for comparison. Violations of Benford-Newcomb’s law about the frequencies of the leading digits cannot serve as proof of falsification but they may provide a basis for deeper discussions between the editor and author about a submitted work.

The 7th biennial National Conference of APAHC, the Association of Psychologists in Academic Health Centers, was held in Atlanta, Georgia, February 5-7, 2015. Speakers were invited to contribute manuscripts based on their conference presentations, and many submitted manuscripts for this special edition of the Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings. Some papers will appear in the December 2015 issue of JCPMS; others will appear in the March 2016 issue. All papers have undergone a rigorous peer review process. The Conference Co-Chairs, Drs. Laura Shaffer and Amit Shahane, are Guest Editors for the special issue. In this article, they provide an overview of the conference's major themes, and also discuss some aspects of conference planning.

The current paper discusses the peer review process in journals that publish research papers purveying new science and understandings (scientific journals). Different aspects of peer review including the selection of reviewers, the review process and the decision policy of editor are discussed in details. Here, the pros and cons of different conventional methods of review processes are mentioned. Finally, a suggestion is presented for the review process of scientific papers.

Schubert (Scientometrics, 78:559---565, 2009) showed that "a Hirsch-type index can be used for assessing single highly cited publications by calculating the h index of the set of papers citing the work in question" (p. 559). To demonstrate that this single publication h index is a useful yardstick to compare the quality of different publications; the index should be strongly related to the assessment by peers. In a comprehensive research project we investigated the peer review process of the Angewandte Chemie International Edition. The data set contains manuscripts reviewed in the year 2000 and accepted by the journal or rejected but published elsewhere. Single publication h index values were calculated for a total of 1,814 manuscripts. The results show a correlation in the expected direction between peer assessments and single publication h index values: After publication, manuscripts with positive ratings by the journal's reviewers show on average higher h index values than manuscripts with negative ratings by reviewers (and later published elsewhere). However, our findings do not support Schubert's (2009) assumption that the additional dimension of indirect citation influence contributes to a more refined picture of the most cited papers.

For each of the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 the number of citations for individual papers published in Physics in Medicine and Biology was compared to the mean quality-score assigned to the manuscript by two independent experts as part of the normal peer review process. A low but statistically significant correlation was found between citations and quality score (1 best to 5 worst) for every year: 2003: −0.227 (p < 0.001); 2004: −0.238 (p < 0.001); 2005: −0.154 (p < 0.01). Papers in the highest quality category (approximately 10 per cent of those published) were cited about twice as often as the average for all papers. Data were also examined retrospectively by dividing the papers published in each year into five citation quintiles. A paper of the highest quality is about ten times more likely to be found in the most cited quintile than in the least cited quintile. By making the assumption that the mean number of citations per paper is a reasonable surrogate for the impact factor, it was also shown that the impact factor for Physics in Medicine and Biology could be increased substantially by rejecting more papers based on the reviewers’ scores. To accomplish this, however, would require a reduction in the acceptance rate of manuscripts from about 50 per cent to near 10 per cent.

Reviewing a surgical manuscript is not an easy task, and there is no formal training available for young referees in the early stage of their careers. Accepting a peer review assignment represents a personal honor for the invited referee and a fundamental ethical responsibility towards the scientific community. Designated reviewers must be accomplished and knowledgeable in the area of the respective topic of investigation. More importantly, they must be aware and cognizant about the cardinal ethical responsibility and stewardship for ensuring the preservation of scientific knowledge of unbiased and unquestionable accuracy in the published literature. Accepting a review assignment should never be taken lightly or considered a simple task, regardless of the reviewer's level of seniority and expertise. Indeed, there are multiple challenges, difficulties, and 'hidden dangers' that jeopardize the completion of a high-quality review, particularly in the hands of less experienced or novice reviewers. The present article was designed to provide a brief, concise, and practical guide on how to review manuscripts for the 'junior referee' in the field of surgery.

Peer-reviewed publication is at the core of scientific communication. However, with the exception of biomedicine, there has been little analysis of the rate of peer-reviewed publication resulting from conference abstracts. This study examined a random sample of abstracts from the 1989 and 1991 Biennial Conferences on the Biology of Marine Mammals to determine how many were published as peer-reviewed papers. Publication rates were 51.4% (±4.7%) and 51.2% (±4.6%), respectively. This low abstract-to-publication rate, coupled with editorial policies prohibiting citation of conference abstracts in some journals, limits access to recent research, and thus affects the vibrance of the discipline.

To (i) examine the use of social media before and after the COVID-19 outbreak; (ii) examine the self-perceived impact of social media before and after the outbreak; and (iii) examine whether the self-perceived impacts of social media after the outbreak varied by levels of mental health. A cross-national online survey was conducted in Norway, UK, USA and Australia. Participants (n = 3810) reported which social media they used, how frequently they used them before and after the COVID-19 outbreak, and the degree to which they felt social media contributed to a range of outcomes. The participants also completed the 12-item General Health Questionnaire. The data were analyzed by chi-square tests and multiple linear regression analysis. Social media were used more frequently after the pandemic outbreak than compared to before the outbreak. Self-perceived effects from using social media increased after the COVID-19 outbreak, and in particular stress and concern for own and others’ health. Emotional distress was associated with being more affected from using social media, in particular in terms of stress and concern for own or others’ health. The use of social media has increased during the coronavirus outbreak, as well as its impacts on people. In particular, the participants reported more stress and health concerns attributed to social media use after the COVID-19 outbreak. People with poor mental health appear to be particularly vulnerable to experiencing more stress and concern related to their use of social media.

ISO/IEC 17025 is the single most popular and well adopted international standard which is applicable for any testing and calibration laboratories irrespective of size of the laboratories. Similarly, ISO 17034 is also very important international standard for development/production of reference materials (RMs) by competent producers. CSIR-National Physical Laboratory of India (NPLI) was one of the 38 National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) those who signed International Committee for Weights and Measures Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA) during 21st General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) meeting in Paris, France on 14th October, 1999. NPLI has been maintaining quality system based on ISO/IEC 17025 for more than two decades to fulfil the requirements of CIPM MRA. NPLI has participated in 130 international inter-comparisons so far; some of them were also piloted by NPLI. NPLI has also undergone International Peer Reviews through Asia Pacific Metrology Programme (APMP) to register 236 Calibration and Measurement Capabilities (CMCs) on various parameters in International Bureau of Weights and Measures Key Comparison Database (BIPM KCDB). However, NPLI for the first time implemented uniform quality system based on ISO 17034 in 2020. In this direction, NPLI for the first time prepared integrated Quality Manual to make policies, objectives and procedures addressing all the requirements of both the standards. Presently, 28 Sub-Divisions of NPLI follow quality system. Some of the Sub-Divisions are involved only in calibration/testing activities maintain only ISO/IEC 17025: 2017. Similarly, some of the Sub-Divisions are involved only in development/production of RMs/certified reference materials (CRMs) (Bharatiya Nirdeshak Dravya, BND®–Indian Reference Material) maintain only ISO 17034. On the other hand, few Sub-Divisions are involved both in calibration/testing as well as BND activities and accordingly follow both the standards. It is an extraordinary challenge for implementation and monitoring of quality system in such a big organization like NPLI. In this article, authors have highlighted preparation process of integrated quality manual based on ISO/IEC 17025: 2017 and ISO 17034: 2016 including policies, objectives & procedures adopted and its implementation process at NPLI. In November, 2020, NPLI has undergone on-site peer review of quality system of 23 Sub-Divisions through APMP.

Age of first walking (AOW) is reported to be later in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) compared with typical development. However, the relationship between AOW and variations in ASD symptoms across different neurodevelopmental disorders is largely unknown. This study investigated AOW and its association with autism symptom severity in a large sample of children (N = 490, 23% females) clinically evaluated for suspected ASD, differentiated into ASD (n = 376) and non-ASD (n = 114) diagnoses. Children with ASD achieved independent walking significantly later than children with non-ASD diagnoses. AOW was significantly associated with ASD symptom severity, and females had a non-significant later AOW. The current findings suggest that in cases with delayed AOW, ASD should be considered as an actual differential diagnosis, perhaps particularly in girls.

Sex differences in typical development can provide context for understanding ASD. Baron-Cohen (Trends Cogn Sci 6(6):248–254, 2002) suggested ASD could be considered an extreme expression of normal male, compared to female, phenotypic profiles. In this paper, sex-specific M-CHAT scores from N = 53,728 18-month-old toddlers, including n = 185 (32 females) with ASD, were examined. Results suggest a nuanced view of the “extreme male brain theory of autism”. At an item level, almost every male versus female disadvantage in the broader population was consistent with M-CHAT vulnerabilities in ASD. However, controlling for total M-CHAT failures, this male disadvantage was more equivocal and many classically ASD-associated features were found more common in non-ASD. Within ASD, females showed relative strengths in joint attention, but impairments in imitation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10803-016-2945-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

As autism rates increase, providers of applied behavioral analysis (ABA) services are more frequently engaging with managed care companies to discuss the medical necessity of treatment. In an effort to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of these reviews, we draw upon our experience as peer reviewers for a managed care company to guide ABA providers in discussions with managed care on behalf of their patients. In this article, we first provide an overview of the managed care peer review process. We then discuss the elements of medical necessity that managed care companies ask about during the review process. Finally, we review specific strategies that ABA providers can use during the process to optimize authorizations for payment for services. Throughout the paper, we provide sample dialogues between providers and peer reviewers based on our experience working for a managed care company along with specific recommendations that we hope will ensure a more collegial and effective peer review process for all involved.

We report data collected in a representative sample of 17-year-old Norwegians to investigate prevalence rates of non-problem, risk, and problem gambling, as measured by the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). In addition, we explored the importance of demographic, personality, motivational, social, and health variables explaining variance in adolescent gambling. Prevalence rates of risk and problem gambling were low but similar to those found in previous studies outside of Norway using the PGSI in adolescent samples. With regard to the relative importance of the various covariates, we found that motivational variables (future gambling intentions, attitudes toward gambling, and gambling-related knowledge) distinguished best between those who did not gamble, non-problem gamblers, and risk and problem gamblers. Furthermore, social variables were important covariates of adolescent gambling; significant associations were found for family and friends’ approval of gambling, parental monitoring, father’s level of education, and having relatives or friends with a history of a gambling disorder. We discuss possible reasons for differences between the covariates with regard to their importance for explaining adolescent gambling and address implications for future research. publishedVersion

Open access (OA) publications have changed the paradigm of dissemination of scientific research. Their benefits to low-income countries underline their value; however, critics question exorbitant publication fees as well as their effect on the peer review process and research quality.This study reports on the prevalence of OA publishing in orthopaedic research and compares benchmark citation indices as well as evidence quality derived from OA journals with conventional subscription based orthopaedic journals.All 63 orthopaedic journals listed in ISI's Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Report (JCR) were examined. Bibliometric data attributed to each journal for the year 2012 was acquired from the JCR. Studies that fulfilled the criteria of level I evidence were identified for each journal within PubMed. Individual journal websites were reviewed to identify their open access policy. A total of 38 (60.3 %) journals did not offer any form of OA publishing; however, 20 (31.7 %) hybrid journals were identified which offered authors the choice to publish their work as OA if a publication fee was paid. Only five (8 %) journals published all their articles as OA. There was variability amongst the different publication fees for OA articles. Journals that published OA articles did not differ from subscription based journals on the basis of 2012 impact factor, citation number, self citation proportion or the volume of level I evidence published (p 0.05).OA journals are present in orthopaedic research, though in small numbers. Over a third of orthopaedic journals catalogued in the ISI Web of Knowledge JCR® are hybrid journals that provide authors with the opportunity to publish their articles as OA after a publication fee is paid. This study suggests equivalent importance and quality of articles between OA and subscription based orthopaedic journals based on bibliometric data and the volume of level I evidence produced. Orthopaedic researchers must recognize the potential benefits of OA publishing and its emerging presence within the field. Further examination and consensus is required in orthopaedic research to generate an OA system that is robustly regulated and maintains research quality.

Are you a student at a higher institution or a graduate who has published his/her first paper in the Journal of Forestry Research or another legitimate scientific journal? If yes, this paper is written specifically for you since you may soon start receiving invitations to act as a referee. If you are an early career reviewer, you may still find this paper enlightening. Based on his experience, a senior editor summarizes some critical information that, in his view, you may need to know. He provides nine main suggestions to have on your radar, and discusses what you should do or not do as a peer reviewer.

Publication following thorough peer review has been one the essential drivers of scientific progress. While the emergence of open access journals has spread knowledge to a wider audience, a few publishers have started to exploit the model of being specifically paid by authors. They have published so-called predatory journals that have sacrificed scientific scrutiny in favor of revenue. Papers in such journals may bear illegitimate conclusions and thus hamper scientific progress. Here, we did not only explain predatory journals in general, we also elaborated on an example and thereby demonstrated how exactly these journals may deviate from scientific standards. Namely, a manufacturer of bacterial endotoxin tests published in a potentially predatory journal and neglected relevant literature, ill-referenced other papers and made use of judgmental, non-scientific language. Apparently, said manufacturer aimed to shed doubt in recombinant DNA technology (here recombinant Factor C) for bacterial endotoxin testing and, thus, restrict its competitors’ access to this market. In turn, this may prevent the development of more accurate, reliable, rapid and affordable bacterial endotoxin tests und in turn hamper progress in pharmaceutical development and manufacturing.

This paper comments on the phenomenon of "publish or perish" associated with the current information explosion and its awful consequence: the curse that hangs over academia which dooms it to publish incessantly irrelevant and pointless documents. The overabundance of publications is not justified and is not even necessary in many contexts for personal promotion, and even less for the advancement of science. Therefore, the current role of scientific journals is highly questionable that its aim could be misleading. Huge numbers of articles are published, but they are not read because the aim is principally "publish for publish," or publication for its own sake. The standard corrective tool for improving scientific communication-peer review-cannot function adequately, and biases and perversions are introduced which undermine society's confidence in the scientific enterprise. A dark landscape unfurls itself across the world of scientific information, forcing us to question and improve its current state. Methodologically this paper goes halfway between the essay and the review trying to provoke engaged and useful controversy.

In this paper, we provide insight into the editorial process as seen from the perspective of journal editors. We study a dataset obtained from the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, which contains information about submitted and rejected manuscripts, in order to find differences between local (Serbian) and external (non-Serbian) submissions. We show that external submissions (mainly from India, Iran and China) constitute the majority of all submissions, while local submissions are in the minority. Most of submissions are rejected for technical reasons (e.g. wrong manuscript formatting or problems with images) and many users resubmit the same paper without making necessary corrections. Manuscripts with just one author are less likely to pass the technical check, which can be attributed to missing metadata. Articles from local authors are better prepared and require fewer resubmissions on average before they are accepted for peer review. The peer review process for local submissions takes less time than for external papers and local submissions are more likely to be accepted for publication. Also, while there are more men than women among external users, this trend is reversed for local users. In the combined group of local and external users, articles submitted by women are more likely to be published than articles submitted by men.

The present study analyses the interest of both experts and the general population in the economic-financial crisis that has affected Spain up until 2019. To examine the interest of the general users, Google searches were analysed through the Google Trends tool. Meanwhile, the interest of scholars was assessed through the analysis of academic papers published on Scopus, one of the most relevant peer reviewed literature database. To this end, a Scopus search was made for papers containing the fragment “Spanish financial crisis” on their tittles, abstracts, or keywords, which ensued a sample of 632 studies. Findings show that the Spanish financial crisis worries the general population as well as scholars. Peaks in searches by general internet users take place in the years preceding the crisis (2004 and 2005) as well as throughout its duration (2008, 2010, and 2012). Accordingly, the academic interest has also grown substantially up from 2008.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the causes and effects of arbitrariness in the peer review process. This paper focuses on two main reasons for the arbitrariness in peer review. The first is that referees are not homogenous and display homophily in their taste and perception of innovative ideas. The second element is that reviewers are different in the time they allocate for peer review. Our model replicates the NIPS experiment of 2014, showing that the ratings of peer review are not robust, and that altering reviewers leads to a dramatic impact on the ranking of the papers. This paper also shows that innovative works are not highly ranked in the existing peer review process, and in consequence are often rejected.

Smart City (SC) has been a popular area of research and practice during the last decade. An in-depth examination of the existing literature reviews on SCs divulges the scarcity of studies classifying the literature into multiple themes and identifying the popular and less popular themes based on the number of peer reviewed research papers under respective theme. Hence, in this study, a descriptive literature review of 86 peer-reviewed papers on SCs has been conducted to bridge this gap. The findings demonstrate that themes such as SC services design and management, innovation and technology, and citizens’ engagement in design and development of SCs have been extensively studied, whereas, themes such as the social impact, governance and policy, and performance indicators and standards have received moderate attention. However, there are also less popular themes such as the implementation barriers and SC strategy. Further, this study provides a reference source to future researchers. It also delivers valuable information to the policymakers and government bodies, which are actively, involved in the SC projects.

The current peer review system suffers from two key problems: promotion of an in-crowd whose methods, opinions and innovations it protects; and failure to represent the opinions and interests of non-peer clients. As a result, whole disciplines orient themselves toward navel-gazing research questions of little import to society or even science as a whole, and new methods and concepts must be unusually persuasive to break through. We thus suggest a more efficient and integrity-preserving system based on an open two-sided market in which buyers and sellers of peer review services would both be subject to a set of recursive quality indicators. We lay out key features we think would be important to reduce the opportunities for gaming and that improve the signals about the societal value of a contribution. Our suggestions include a level of reward offered by the author of a paper to get refereed and a level of desired quality of the referee. They include randomly selecting from a group of referees that express a willingness to accept the offered contract. They include the possibility that papers are put up by non-authors for peer-review for assessment on different criteria, such as societal relevance. And they finally include the possibility that referee reports themselves become refereed by other referees. What we envisage is that such an open market in which all elements are subject to peer review will over time lead to specialized reviewers in different criteria, and more useful signals about the nature and quality of any individual piece of work. Our incentivized market set-up would both professionalize the peer review process and make it completely transparent, an innovation long overdue.

The social aspect of sustainable and ‘clean’ production/manufacturing technologies is researched and understood by means of Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA), a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) tool, which is still in its infancy. In this paper, a search for all peer-reviewed publications on applied Social LCA, which have appeared in scientific journals, between O’Brien et al (1996) and the latest one at the time of writing (April 2018), was carried out, using Scopus as the repository and using “S-LCA” OR “SLCA” OR “Social LCA” OR “Social Life Cycle Assessment” as search-phrases in title, abstract and keywords of publications, separately. Overall, 213 publications were unearthed, and the trend shows that there has been a near-exponential increase over time. A little over 55% of these publications – 121 to be precise - were applications of S-LCA – often in combination with environmental-LCA and life cycle costing analysis, in an LCSA. This paper discusses the contributions of a selected subset of these 121 publications to the body of S-LCA knowledge, with the focus being restricted to applications in developing and transition economies of the world, on the premise that there is a more urgent need to understand social aspects of production and manufacturing in these parts of the world. A SWOT analysis of S-LCA has been carried out towards the end. There is a consensus among many researchers that while LCC and E-LCA have matured a lot over time, S-LCA, the newest of the trio, is evolving slowly to become a harmonised tool which can serve as an effective complement to the aforesaid two, in life cycle sustainability assessments of products and processes in industry.

Background The NHS Health Check (NHSHC) is a risk assessment for those aged 40–74 without a pre-existing condition in England, with the aim of preventing stroke, kidney disease, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and dementia. Uptake has been lower than anticipated. Ensuring that a high percentage of eligible patients receive a NHSHC is key to optimising the clinical and cost effectiveness of the programme. The aim of this systematic review is to highlight interventions and invitation methods that increase the uptake of NHSHCs, and to identify whether the effectiveness of these interact with broader patient and contextual factors. Method A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. Papers were eligible if they explored the impact of at least one of (i) interventions, (ii) invitation methods or (iii) broader factors on NHSHC uptake. Ten databases were searched in January 2016 and seven were searched in March 2018. Nine-hundred-and-forty-five papers were identified, 238 were screened and 64 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Nine studies were included in the review. Results The nine studies were all from peer reviewed journals. They included two randomised controlled trials, one observational cohort and six cross-sectional studies. Different invitation methods may be more effective for different groups of patients based on their ethnicity and gender. One intervention to enhance invitation letters effectively increased uptake but another did not. In addition, individual patient characteristics (such as age, gender, ethnicity and risk level) were found to influence uptake. This review also finds that uptake varies significantly by GP practice, which could be due either to unidentified practice-level factors or deprivation. Conclusions Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of different invitation methods for different population groups. Research should examine how existing invitation methods can be enhanced to drive uptake whilst reducing health inequalities. Trial registration This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO on 22.02.2016. Registration number CRD42016035626.

This paper shows that, for a large range of parameters, the journal editor prefers to delegate the choice to review the manuscript to the biased referee. If the peer review process is informative and the review reports are costly for the reviewers, even biased referees with extreme scientific preferences may choose to become informed about the manuscript's quality. On the contrary, if the review process is potentially informative but the reviewer reports are not costly for the referees, the biased reviewer has no incentive to become informed about the manuscript. Furthermore, if the reports are costly for referees but the peer review processes are not potentially informative, the biased reviewers will never become informed. In this paper, we also present a web resource that helps editors to experiment with the review process as a device for information transmission.

Peer review is an integral part of science. Devised to ensure and enhance the quality of scientific work, it is a crucial step that influences the publication of papers, the provision of grants and, as a consequence, the career of scientists. In order to meet the challenges of this responsibility, a certain shared understanding of scientific quality seems necessary. Yet previous studies have shown that inter-rater reliability in peer reviews is relatively low. However, most of these studies did not take ill-structured measurement design of the data into account. Moreover, no prior (quantitative) study has analyzed inter-rater reliability in an interdisciplinary field. And finally, issues of validity have hardly ever been addressed. Therefore, the three major research goals of this paper are (1) to analyze inter-rater agreement of different rating dimensions (e.g., relevance and soundness) in an interdisciplinary field, (2) to account for ill-structured designs by applying state-of-the-art methods, and (3) to examine the construct and criterion validity of reviewers’ evaluations. A total of 443 reviews were analyzed. These reviews were provided by m = 130 reviewers for n = 145 submissions to an interdisciplinary conference. Our findings demonstrate the urgent need for improvement of scientific peer review. Inter-rater reliability was rather poor and there were no significant differences between evaluations from reviewers of the same scientific discipline as the papers they were reviewing versus reviewer evaluations of papers from disciplines other than their own. These findings extend beyond those of prior research. Furthermore, convergent and discriminant construct validity of the rating dimensions were low as well. Nevertheless, a multidimensional model yielded a better fit than a unidimensional model. Our study also shows that the citation rate of accepted papers was positively associated with the relevance ratings made by reviewers from the same discipline as the paper they were reviewing. In addition, high novelty ratings from same-discipline reviewers were negatively associated with citation rate.

Peer review is the most important aspect of reputable journals. Without it, we would be unsure about whether the material published was as valid and reliable as is possible. However, with the advent of the Internet, scientific literature has now become subject to a relatively new phenomenon: fake peer reviews. Some dishonest researchers have been manipulating the peer review process to publish what are often inferior papers. There are even papers that explain how to do it. This paper discusses one of those methods and how editors can defeat it by using a special review ID. This method is easy to understand and can be added to current peer review systems easily.

Journal peer review relies on the willingness of researchers to volunteer their time to review manuscripts. However, editors often have difficulty recruiting reviewers, and this difficulty can vary quite substantially among manuscripts. This study examines whether the difficulty recruiting reviewers influences outcomes of the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution. The difficulty editors had recruiting reviewers varied substantially among papers, with editors successfully recruiting the first two people invited just 22% of the time, and being declined by two or more invitees for more than half (56%) of reviewed papers. Papers for which editors had more difficulty recruiting reviewers were more likely to be declined at all six journals, with an increase in the odds of acceptance ranging from a low of 3.5 ± 1.2% to a high of 17.3 ± 2.0% for each 10% increase in the proportion of reviewers agreeing to review. Papers for which editors had more difficulty recruiting reviewers were also reviewed less positively at all six journals, and this influence on review scores explained most but not all of the influence of recruitment difficulty on outcomes. Reviewers invited close together in sequence (without many declined invitations between them) were more consistent in the scores they submit than were reviewers invited more greatly separated in sequence, suggesting that editors recruit different kinds of reviewers early versus late in the reviewer invitation sequence. However, the scores submitted by later-recruited reviewers were not less predictive of the editor’s decision than were scores of early-recruited reviewers. The influence of reviewer recruitment difficulty on decisions, although of small effect, should be considered among the diversity of variables that influence outcomes of the editorial and peer review process at academic journals.

This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Sports Medicine. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0741-z Background: Many variables related to sport have been shown to have circadian rhythms. Chronotype is the expression of circadian rhythmicity in an individual, and three categories of chronotype are defined: morning types (M-types), evening types (E-types), and neither types (N-types). M-types show earlier peaks of several psychophysiological variables during the day than E-types. The effect of chronotype on athletic performance has not been extensively investigated. Objective: The objective of the present review was to study the effect of chronotype on athletic performance and the psychophysiological responses to physical activity. Methods: The present review adheres to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses) reporting guidelines. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for scientific papers using the keywords ‘‘chronotype’’, ‘‘circadian typology’’, ‘‘morningness’’, and ‘‘eveningness’’ in combination with each of the words ‘‘sport’’, ‘‘performance’’, and ‘‘athletic.’’ Relevant reference lists were inspected. We limited the search results to peerreviewed papers published in English from 1985 to 2015. Results: Ten papers met our inclusion criteria. Rating of perceived exertion and fatigue scores in relation to athletic performances are influenced by chronotype: M-types perceived less effort when performing a submaximal physical task in the morning than did N- and E-types. In addition, M-types generally showed better athletic performances, as measured by race times, in the morning than did N- and E-types. Other results concerning chronotype effect on physiological responses to physical activity were not always consistent: heterogeneous samples and different kinds of physical activity could partially explain these discrepancies. Conclusions: Sports trainers and coaches should take into account the influence of both the time of day and chronotype effect when scheduling training sessions into specific time periods.

The debate on whether the peer-review system is in crisis has been heated recently. A variety of alternative systems have been proposed to improve the system and make it sustainable. However, we lack sufficient evidence and data related to these issues. Here we used a previously developed agent-based model of the scientific publication and peer-review system calibrated with empirical data to compare the efficiency of five alternative peer-review systems with the conventional system. We modelled two systems of immediate publication, with and without online reviews (crowdsourcing), a system with only one round of reviews and revisions allowed (re-review opt-out) and two review-sharing systems in which rejected manuscripts are resubmitted along with their past reviews to any other journal (portable) or to only those of the same publisher but of lower impact factor (cascade). The review-sharing systems outperformed or matched the performance of the conventional one in all peer-review efficiency, reviewer effort and scientific dissemination metrics we used. The systems especially showed a large decrease in total time of the peer-review process and total time devoted by reviewers to complete all reports in a year. The two systems with immediate publication released more scientific information than the conventional one but provided almost no other benefit. Re-review opt-out decreased the time reviewers devoted to peer review but had lower performance on screening papers that should not be published and relative increase in intrinsic quality of papers due to peer review than the conventional system. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent findings to those from our main simulations. We recommend prioritizing a system of review-sharing to create a sustainable scientific publication and peer-review system.

Beyond explicit reviewer commentary, editors may rely on other metrics when evaluating manuscripts under consideration for publication. One potential, indirect measure of merit may be the ease or difficulty in identifying reviewers willing to review a given paper. We sought to determine whether reviewer decisions to agree or decline to review a manuscript are associated with manuscript acceptance. Original Research submissions to “Radiology” from 1/1/2008 to 12/31/2011 were studied. Using Student’s t tests, we studied the association between the ratio number-of-reviewers-declining:number-of-reviewers-agreeing to review manuscripts (“decline:agree ratio”) and editor decision to accept or reject the manuscript. A subgroup analysis of papers in which all four invited reviewers agreed to review the paper (“universal agree-to-review group”) was performed. Pearson’s correlation was used to study decline:agree ratio and accepted manuscript citation rate. Original Research manuscript acceptance rate at Radiology was 14.5% (780/5375). Decline:agree ratio was similar between accepted and rejected manuscripts (0.87 ± 0.84 versus 0.90 ± 0.86 respectively, P = 0.35). “Universal agree-to-review” papers were accepted at similar rates to other papers (15.7% [22/140] versus 14.5% [758/5235] respectively, P = 0.69). Higher decline:agree ratios corresponded to lower manuscript citation rates (r = 0.09, P = 0.048). Our study, based on the lack of correlation between agreement to review rate and acceptance rate to Radiology and the direct correlation between agreement to review rate and manuscript citation rate, suggests that reviewers may have a preference for manuscripts with greater potential scientific relevance, but that reviewer motivation to agree to review does not include the expectation of manuscript acceptance.

The peer review process is an essential component for the progress of science. The ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human---Robot Interaction is the prime publication channel for the field and this study evaluates its peer review process. The results show that the number of accepted papers are unevenly distributed across countries, organizations and authors. The contributions from the US outweigh all others contributions. A Binary Logistic Regression analysis showed that only for 85.5% of the papers the reviewers' scores accurately predict its acceptance or rejection. Moreover, there was no significant correlation between the reviewers' scores and the citations the papers later attract. 73% of the authors only ever submitted one paper and the proportion of newcomers at the conferences ranges from 63---77%.

Study Design Retrospective analysis of peer review comments. Objectives To assess the likelihood that comments provided by peer reviewers of one orthopaedic journal would be similar to comments of reviewers from the same journal and a second journal. Summary of Background Data The consistency of the peer review process in orthopedic research has not been objectively examined. Methods Nine separate clinical papers related to spinal deformity were submitted for publication in major peer-reviewed journals and initially rejected. The exact same manuscripts were then submitted to different journals. All papers were returned with comments from two to three reviewers from each journal. Reviews were divided into distinct conceptual criticisms that were regarded as separate comments. Comments were compared between reviewers of the same journal and to comments from reviewers of the second journal. Results When comparing comments from reviewers of the same journal, an average of 11% of comments were repeated (range 0% [0/12] to 23% [3/13]). On average, 20% of comments from the first journal were repeated by a reviewer at the second journal (range 10% [1/10] to 33% [6/18]). If a comment was made by two or more reviewers from the first journal, it had a higher likelihood (43% [6/14]) of being repeated by a reviewer from the second journal. Conclusion When an identical manuscript is submitted to a second journal after being rejected, 80% of peer review comments from the first journal are not repeated by reviewers from the second journal. One may question if addressing every peer review comment in a rejected manuscript prior to resubmission is an efficient use of resources. Comments that appear twice or more in the first journal review are more likely to reappear and may warrant special attention from the researcher. Level of Evidence Level IV.

Background This paper assesses possible reasons why Hermann J. Muller avoided peer-review of data that became the basis of his Nobel Prize award for producing gene mutations in male Drosophila by X-rays. Methods Extensive correspondence between Muller and close associates and other materials were obtained from preserved papers to compliment extensive publications by and about Muller in the open literature. These were evaluated for potential historical insights that clarify why he avoided peer-review of his Nobel Prize findings. Results This paper clarifies the basis of Muller’s (Muller HJ, Sci 66 84-87, 1927c) belief that he produced X-ray induced “gene” mutations in Drosophila. It then shows his belief was contemporaneously challenged by his longtime friend/confidant and Drosophila geneticist, Edgar Altenburg. Altenburg insisted that Muller may have simply poked large holes in chromosomes with massive doses of X-rays, and needed to provide proof of gene “point” mutations. Given the daunting and uncertain task to experimentally address this criticism, especially within the context of trying to become first to produce gene mutations, it is proposed that Muller purposely avoided peer-review while rushing to publish his paper in Science to claim discovery primacy without showing any data. The present paper also explores ethical issues surrounding these actions, including those of the editor of Science, James McKeen Catell and Altenburg, and their subsequent impact on the scientific and regulatory communities. Conclusion This historical analysis suggests that Muller deliberately avoided peer-review on his most significant findings because he was extremely troubled by the insightful and serious criticism of Altenburg, which suggested he had not produced gene mutations as he claimed. Nonetheless, Muller manipulated this situation (i.e., publishing a discussion within Science with no data, publishing a poorly written non-peer reviewed conference proceedings with no methods and materials, and no references) due to both the widespread euphoria over his claim of gene mutation and confidence that Altenburg would not publically challenge him. This situation permitted Muller to achieve his goal to be the first to produce gene mutations while buying him time to later try to experimentally address Altenburg’s criticisms, and a possible way to avoid discovery of his questionable actions.

In this paper, we undertake a data-driven theoretical investigation of editorial workflows. We analyse a dataset containing information about 58 papers submitted to the Biochemistry and Biotechnology section of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. We separate the peer review process into stages that each paper has to go through and introduce the notion of completion rate - the probability that an invitation sent to a potential reviewer will result in a finished review. Using empirical transition probabilities and probability distributions of the duration of each stage we create a directed weighted network, the analysis of which allows us to obtain the theoretical probability distributions of review time for different classes of reviewers. These theoretical distributions underlie our numerical simulations of different editorial strategies. Through these simulations, we test the impact of some modifications of the editorial policy on the efficiency of the whole review process. We discover that the distribution of review time is similar for all classes of reviewers, and that the completion rate of reviewers known personally by the editor is very high, which means that they are much more likely to answer the invitation and finish the review than other reviewers. Thus, the completion rate is the key factor that determines the efficiency of each editorial policy. Our results may be of great importance for editors and act as a guide in determining the optimal number of reviewers.

Peer review is a central institution in academic publishing, yet its processes and effects on research remain opaque. Empirical studies have (1) been rare because data on the peer review process are generally unavailable, and (2) conceptualized peer review as gate-keepers who either accept or reject a manuscript, overlooking peer review’s role in constructing articles. This study uses a unique data resource to study how sociological manuscripts change during peer review. Authors of published sociological research often present earlier versions of that research at annual meetings of the American Sociological Association (ASA). Many of these annual meetings papers are publicly available online and tend to be uploaded before undergoing formal peer review. A data sample is constructed by linking these papers to the respective versions published between 2006 and 2012 in two peer-reviewed journals, American Sociological Review and Social Forces. Quantitative and qualitative analyses examine changes across article versions, paying special attention to how elements of data analysis and theory in the ASA versions change. Results show that manuscripts tend to change more substantially in their theoretical framing than in the data analyses. The finding suggests that a chief effect of peer review in quantitative sociology is to prompt authors to adjust their theoretical framing, a mode or review I call “data-driven.” The data-driven mode of review problematizes the vision of sociological research as addressing theoretically motivated questions.

Advocates of homeopathy say that the rat study is evidence of the practice’s efficacy, but some scientists have cast doubt on the paper. Advocates of homeopathy say that the rat study is evidence of the practice’s efficacy, but some scientists have cast doubt on the paper.

This paper will propose a new system that produces a metric that is an indicator of the level of peer review conducted prior to the publication of scholarly material. A mathematical algorithm which incorporates weighted values of the roles within the peer review process is created. The h-index, which is a value that “measures the productivity and impact of a scientist or scholar,” is also incorporated. Each round of review is weighted using the square root as later rounds of peer review are often less rigorous than earlier rounds. Once a paper is accepted the calculation is conducted and a “peer review evaluation” metric, or “Peer Review Evaluation Score” (pre-SCORE) is available. It is clear that such a metric would prove beneficial to all engaged parties (authors, publishers, readers, libraries). Authors will know that their work is being evaluated by a trustworthy publication and by experts in their field. Legitimate, ethical publishers will be recognized as such. Readers would have the ability to filter out material which was not properly vetted, and libraries/consortia would have further assurance that their limited funds are spent wisely. Future studies to see if there is a correlation between the pre-SCORE and Impact Factor or highly cited material is possible. The proposed metric would be one more tool available to aid in the discovery of quality published research.

In this paper we focus on the analysis of peer reviews and reviewers behaviour in a number of different review processes. More specifically, we report on the development, definition and rationale of a theoretical model for peer review processes to support the identification of appropriate metrics to assess the processes main characteristics in order to render peer review more transparent and understandable. Together with known metrics and techniques we introduce new ones to assess the overall quality (i.e. ,reliability, fairness, validity) and efficiency of peer review processes e.g. the robustness of the process, the degree of agreement/disagreement among reviewers, or positive/negative bias in the reviewers' decision making process. We also check the ability of peer review to assess the impact of papers in subsequent years. We apply the proposed model and analysis framework to a large reviews data set from ten different conferences in computer science for a total of ca. 9,000 reviews on ca. 2,800 submitted contributions. We discuss the implications of the results and their potential use toward improving the analysed peer review processes. A number of interesting results were found, in particular: (1) a low correlation between peer review outcome and impact in time of the accepted contributions; (2) the influence of the assessment scale on the way how reviewers gave marks; (3) the effect and impact of rating bias, i.e. reviewers who constantly give lower/higher marks w.r.t. all other reviewers; (4) the effectiveness of statistical approaches to optimize some process parameters (e.g. ,number of papers per reviewer) to improve the process overall quality while maintaining the overall effort under control. Based on the lessons learned, we suggest ways to improve the overall quality of peer-review through procedures that can be easily implemented in current editorial management systems.

Considering a rejection rate of 80–90%, the preparation of a research grant is often considered a daunting task since it is resource intensive and there is no guarantee of success, even for seasoned researchers. This commentary provides a summary of the key points a researcher needs to consider when writing a research grant proposal, outlining: (1) how to conceptualise the research idea; (2) how to find the right funding call; (3) the importance of planning; (4) how to write; (5) what to write, and (6) key questions for reflection during preparation. It attempts to explain the difficulties associated with finding calls in clinical pharmacy and advanced pharmacy practice, and how to overcome them. The commentary aims to assist all pharmacy practice and health services research colleagues new to the grant application process, as well as experienced researchers striving to improve their grant review scores. The guidance in this paper is part of ESCP’s commitment to stimulate “innovative and high-quality research in all areas of clinical pharmacy”.

As has now been the case for several years, both the quality and quantity of research in autism has continued to increase dramatically. This past year, we instituted a policy of blinded reviews that has generally been found helpful by both authors and reviewers. We’ve also become more vigilant about the issue of duplicate publication and, sadly, have dealt with one instance of plagiarism (the first author was admonished, the paper rejected, and a letter went to the co-authors and the institution). During 2011, a record number of papers, reviews, and letters to the editor, 712 in total, were submitted. As in the past, the able staff both at Springer and my office and those of the associate editors have worked diligently to ensure that the papers conform to Journal guidelines before they are sent for review. As a practical matter, this means that most papers are returned quickly to the authors for revision even before going out for peer review. Whenever possible, we attempt to be expeditious with reviews—the turnaround time averaged about 8 weeks (with a few reviews being much faster and some being much slower). One of the problems that we, and other journals, face is ‘reviewer fatigue’. We have taken several steps to deal with the increase in submissions. The associate editors and I have now begun, occasionally to reject papers (about 5%) that we believe simply have little or no chance of making it through the peer review process. As noted previously, we have stopped accepting case reports except as letters to the editor (these take a disproportionate burden of time when submitted as regular papers and create special problems in terms of duplicate publication). We are enlarging our editorial board, and I’m pleased to welcome both the new members of the board, as we bid farewell to those rotating off. We are pleased to welcome two new associate editors to the Journal. Dr. Joshua Diehl from the University of Rochester will replace Dr. Rhea Paul as she steps down from her role of associate editor later this year. Dr. Diehl’s work has focused on improving and understanding social-communication problems in autism. His interests in such areas as adaptive technology bring another important strength to the board. We are also pleased to welcome Dr. Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele from Vanderbilt University as a new associate editor. Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele’s work has focused on animal models and the neurobiology of autism and brings another important perspective to the Journal. Finally, Dr. Brian Reichow, a special educator and expert in evidence-based treatments and practice, is joining us as Book Review Editor. Although JADD is now published every month, the increasing number of submissions means that the rejection rate will continue to increase. Most papers (about 80%) are now revised to ensure that they conform to Journal style even before they enter the review process. Of the papers submitted in 2011 in which an editorial decision was made, the acceptance rate was approximately 38% compared to 45% in 2010; this does not include the small number of papers rejected without review. As always, the diligent efforts of the Editorial Board ensure that the leading scientific papers are selected for publication in JADD each year. As always I’m deeply grateful to the Associate Editors: Nancy Minshew, M.D., Sandra Harris, Ph.D., Christopher McDougle, M.D., Rhea Paul, Ph.D. and Tony Charman, Ph.D. who have so generously and diligently supported the work of the Journal even in the face of the growing number of submissions. I’m also grateful to Lori Klein and Emily F. R. Volkmar (&) Yale Child Study Center, New Haven, CT, USA e-mail: fred.vokmar@yale.edu

Peer review of journal articles is an important step in the research process. Editors rely on the expertise of peer reviewers to properly assess submissions. Yet, peer review quality varies widely and few receive training or guidance in how to approach the task. This paper describes some of the main steps that peer reviewers in general and, in particular, those performing reviewes of randomised controlled trials (RCT), can use when carrying out a review. It can be helpful to begin with a brief read to acquaint yourself with the study, followed by a detailed read and a careful check for flaws. These can be divided into 'major' (problems that must be resolved before publication can be considered) and 'minor' (suggested improvements that are discretionary) flaws. Being aware of the appropriate reporting checklist for the study being reviewed (such as CONSORT and its extensions for RCTs) can also be valuable. Competing interests or prejudices might corrode the review, so ensuring transparency about them is important. Finally, ensuring that the paper's strengths are acknowledged along with a dissection of the weaknesses provides balance and perspective to both authors and editors. Helpful reviews are constructive and improve the quality of the paper. The proper conduct of a peer review is the responsibility of all who accept the role.

The paper scrutinises the dynamics and the nature of peer review in the programme evaluation and accreditation process within the context of diverse individual and institutional legacies in South Africa. It analyses the peer review process and highlights the contestation at political, policy and epistemological levels. The paper argues that, although the diversity of the review teams very often led to consensus based more on political compromises than on sound professional and academic grounds, all participants experienced the process as educative — offering conceptual and practical opportunities for development. It points to the need for problematisation of peer review and for a critical examination of its possibilities and limits in programme review.

Recently, philosophers of science have argued that the epistemological requirements of different scientific fields lead necessarily to differences in scientific method. In this paper, we examine possible variation in how language is used in peer-reviewed journal articles from various fields to see if features of such variation may help to elucidate and support claims of methodological variation among the sciences. We hypothesize that significant methodological differences will be reflected in related differences in scientists’ language style. This paper reports a corpus-based study of peer-reviewed articles from twelve separate journals in six fields of experimental and historical sciences. Machine learning methods were applied to compare the discourse styles of articles in different fields, based on easily-extracted linguistic features of the text. Features included function word frequencies, as used often in computational stylistics, as well as lexical features based on systemic functional linguistics, which affords rich resources for comparative textual analysis. We found that indeed the style of writing in the historical sciences is readily distinguishable from that of the experimental sciences. Furthermore, the most significant linguistic features of these distinctive styles are directly related to the methodological differences posited by philosophers of science between historical and experimental sciences, lending empirical weight to their contentions.