Search

The article titled "Laser Welding of UNS S33207 Hyper-Duplex Stainless Steel to 6061 Aluminum Alloy Using High Entropy Alloy as a Filler Material" has been retracted by the Applied Sciences Editorial Office. Concerns were raised about image overlaps between this article and a previously published article with no common authorship. An investigation confirmed the overlap of figures in both articles, leading to the decision to retract the publication. The retraction was approved by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Dhanesh G. Mohan agreed to the retraction, while Jacek Tomków and Sasan Sattarpanah Karganroudi did not provide a comment. [Extracted from the article]

The article titled "Envariance as a Symmetry in Quantum Mechanics and Applications to Statistical Mechanics" has been retracted by the Symmetry Editorial Office. Concerns were raised about the article's overlap with previously published studies by different authors. An investigation confirmed that sections 2-5 of the article contained text and equations that were not appropriately acknowledged or cited from the earlier studies. As a result, the article has been retracted in accordance with MDPI's retraction policy and the Committee on Publication Ethics's retraction guidelines. The authors did not provide a comment on this decision. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose: There are concerns in the academic publishing community that it is becoming more difficult to secure reviews for scientific manuscripts. This study examines trends in editorial and peer review processes in an ophthalmological journal over the last decade. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of editorial data from the journal Acta Ophthalmologica containing all manuscript submissions between 2010 and 2020. Results: The number of yearly submissions grew between 2010 and 2019 from 1014 to 1623, and in 2020, the number of submissions increased to 2449. In total, the number of submissions increased by 142% between 2010 and 2020. Similarly, the proportion of desk‐rejected manuscripts increased from 48% to 67% during the period 2010–2020. The number of invitations needed to obtain one review showed an increase from 1.9 to 2.6 between 2010 and 2019, but remained stable between 2019 and 2020. However, the number of reviewers per reviewed manuscript, reviewed manuscripts per reviewer and time from invitation to completed review assignment remained almost constant between 2010 and 2020. Researchers based in North American were disproportionally often invited to review (18%) compared to their share of published articles (7%), and they also declined review invitation more frequently compared to scholars in other parts of the world. Conclusions: The study revealed an increase in submitted manuscripts to an ophthalmological journal over the last decade, with a further increase during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The number of reviewer invitations needed to obtain one review grew during the study period but remained constant between 2019 and 2020, despite a vast increase in submitted manuscripts. Hence, the burden for unique reviewers did not increase. Instead, the proportion of desk‐rejected manuscripts grew, and the reviewer pool expanded, which allowed the annual average number of reviews by individual reviewers to remain stable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The social sciences, including management, are at a crossroads. Globally, scholars are increasingly pressured to publish in top journals, compelling editorial boards to recruit more individuals--including those with less experience--to meet the demand. Furthermore, the validity of the social sciences is under scrutiny in light of ethical violations, article retractions, and calls for more relevant research. At the epicenter of this conundrum lie journal editors, those who adjudicate the quality and potential of submitted research. With these issues as backdrop, we report an inductive study of how journal editors come to understand the notion of theoretical contribution. Working with a data set of editorial decision letters and interviews with editors at two top management journals, we provide critical insight into how new editors, despite not yet having the requisite experience or knowledge to make expert judgments, experience being labeled experts by their scholarly community--a phenomenon we label "novice experts." We find that the process of making sense of theoretical contribution differs for novice experts than for those with more experience. Given the rise in less experienced editors, our data suggest that now is the time to rethink the hows and whys of knowledge dissemination at the heart of our profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses the 19th editorial team for the journal which is ending its three-year run as of that issue, stating the editorial team received 3,358 original manuscript submissions in that period and published 174 of them, and thanks various editorial board members including Joyce Bono, Gerry George, and Adam Grant.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to determine the presence and evaluate the features of potential predatory journals in the radiology field.Methods: The presence of the keywords related to radiology listed in the name of journals was investigated in Beall's list. We have searched and recorded the features and the information of the included journals listed under the following headings: address and location, publishing features, editorial board, indexing features, submission, and peer-review processes.Results: A total of 66 radiology journals from 27 publishers were identified from the updated version of the original Beall's list. Regarding the publishers, 33 journals (50%) reported an address in the United States of America, while others were from United Kingdom, India, Hong Kong, Iran, and Canada. While 44 journals' (67%) website reported a contact address, no addresses were declared in the website of 21 journals (32%). The median time of publication activity was 3.5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1-5 years; range, 0-16 years). Thirty-five journals (53%) indicated their publication ethics policy on the website. Forty-seven (71%) journals reported a regular editorial board (EB) list. The competency of the EB was considered as "inappropriate" in 27 (41%) journals. Only 18% of the total number of EB members had affiliations related to radiology (n=286/1566). Forty journals (61%) did not report any indexing and database coverage. We found 26 journals (39%) which had a DOI number in its latest 5 articles. Fifty-nine (89%) journals clearly reported article processing change (APC) on the webpage. The median APC value was 641.43 USD (IQR, 300-918.75 USD; range, 100-2588 USD). Considering the latest 5 articles, the number of journals with radiologic images in all of the articles was 8 (12%). Mean peer-review time was 63.5 days (IQR, 21.75-87.5 days; range, 1-237 days) for the journals which indicated the submission and acceptance dates clearly.Conclusion: We demonstrated the several main characteristics of potential predatory journals in the radiology field such as reliability of the reported address, APC, publication frequencies, indexing features, features of published article and peer-review time which were all found to be similar to the characteristics of potential predatory journals in other biomedical fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I want to thank the authors of the articles published in I Drugs in R& i D over the course of 2022. The quality of published articles is also testament to the diligence of the peer reviewers. [Extracted from the article]

The article offers information on the editorial policy of the periodical "Revista de Estudios Sociales." Various topics discussed include articles' evaluation, criteria of their presentation, its editorial procedure, editing rules of the periodical, examples of bibliographical citations and its editorial team.

An editorial is presented on topics relevant to review articles including importance, purpose, and prevalence of review papers, editorial board initiative for publication quality standards, and process and structure for systematic review methods. It expresses the view that review articles are evaluations of material that has already been published, reflect strategy-focused topics, and mentions replicability, usability, and format of research articles.

Academic research has a role in advancing and enlightening society in broad areas of study. Many forces interact to influence the directions, topics, and methodologies used in research. In this paper, we explore and discuss the relationships between the top general-interest and specialist accounting journals. We test whether top journals (e.g., "Top 3" or "Top 6"), relative to a set of high-quality, but specialist, journals, (1) are perceived to be general in what they will consider publishing, (2) have historically published diverse sets of articles, (3) have editorial board members with diverse sets of interests and skills, and (4) publish the most highly cited articles by topic area and methodology. The results suggest that some of the top journals are not as general as their mission statements suggest and that they do not publish the most highly cited articles in some topic areas and methodologies. These results may help institutions consider whether "counting" only the top journals is an appropriate measure for judging faculty scholarship. The results suggest that counting articles in the traditional top journals alone will be problematic if institutions want to promote research in a broad range of accounting topics and issues in the profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the four articles selected by GOM's editorial leadership team for special recognition as 2014 Outstanding Articles. The articles included "Courage: Making Teamwork Work Well," "Charismatic Leadership and Rhetorical Competence: An Analysis of Steve Jobs's Rhetoric," and "Neuroscientific Insights Into Management Development: Theoretical Propositions and Practical Implications."

The article discusses the updates to the journal related to biological sciences. It states the introduction of several subject areas including behavior, development and physiology, and evolution. It cites the appointment of a Preprint Editor that will evaluate interesting articles suitable for the journal. It mentions taking proactive stance to redress gender imbalance on the editorial board of the journal.

Linked Editorials This Editorial is part of a series. To view the other Editorials in this series, visit: ; ; and [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ARRIVE guidelines have been implemented in BJP for 4 years with the aim of increasing transparency in reporting experiments involving animals. BJP has assessed our success in implementing them and concluded that we could do better. This editorial discusses the issues and explains how we are changing our requirements for authors to report their findings in experiments involving animals. This is one of a series of discussing updates to the BJP Linked Editorials This Editorial is part of a series. To view the other Editorials in this series, visit: ; ; and . Video To view the video on the ARRIVE guidelines, visit: [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the various aspects of the periodical "Drugs in R & D" which includes reviewers, published articles and editorial boards.

The article discusses the annual reports of the Econometric Society for 2012-2013. It also discusses data presented in tables which provide summary statistics on the editorial process in the form presented in previous editors' reports. It also shares the contributions of writers to the success of the journal and the format of the articles being submitted to the editorial board.

The article offers information on various aspects associated with the June 2013 issue of the online periodical "New Phytologist," including its content, editorial board and its scope. It further mentions that the periodical is published 16 times in a year and its price is exclusive of all taxes. It also mentions that the periodical is registered with the New Phytologist Trust.

The article discusses the journal's history marking its anniversary of completing 40 years. Topics include publication's editorial committee members including Stephen Parker and Steve Witt, famous and prominent articles such as; “As for the Future, Your task Is Not to Foresee It, But to Enable It" by author Derek Law and “Measuring the Impact of Knowledge Management" by author Jong-Ae Kim, and introduction of its presence in 2011 through social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

The article offers information on topics related to the periodical issue including manuscripts, aims and scope, subscriptions, and delivery and legal title. It presents a table of contents on topics including 'Mutations in RELT cause autosomal recessive amelogenesis imperfecta.' It mentions editors including editor-in-chief Reiner A. Veitia, associate editors Ludwine Messiaen, Pablo Lapunzina, Elfride De Baere and Aad Tibben, founding editors and editorial board members.

The article offers information on the periodical including its editorial board members such as Paul McLoughlin, editor-in-chief, cover illustration and information on articles for authors.

The article presents editors' report about the "British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology" for 2015. Information included in the report include the number of articles published in the journal, the themes of the journal for the year, and the journal submissions from January 1, 2015. It also includes the changes in the periodical's editorial boards.