Search

Conference proceedings are one of the most important forms of communication for computer scientists. This study investigated the policies of a large number of computer science journals with regard to the republication of papers which had already appeared in conference proceedings. Nearly one-quarter of journal editors would not republish such papers other than in special circumstances (such as a special conference issue), and almost all of the remainder would do so only after substantial updating and expansion of the original paper. Many specified the amount of content that should be new: 30% was the proportion most frequently mentioned. Thus, many sections of text may be identical to the original paper. However, some journal editors do not appear to consider this self-plagiarism provided the original publication is properly cited. Nevertheless, such (re)publication is likely to lead to high similarity scores in CrossCheck; in this field, therefore, journal editors need to exercise particular discretion when evaluating CrossCheck results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to provide advice to accounting doctoral students and new accounting Ph.D.s on managing the review process. We also hope that our advice and suggestions will assist more experienced accounting faculty in their research endeavors. We offer suggestions from the point of view of researchers at various stages in their career. We also interview a variety of current and former journal editors and provide their suggestions and insights. We first provide suggestions to help position the article so as to receive a more helpful review. We then discuss strategies for responding to the editorial process and provide specific advice for handling various editorial decisions including a rejection, a reject-and-resubmit, a revise-and-resubmit, and an acceptance. We build upon prior research by providing a summary of advice for each type of editorial decision and by providing advice and suggestions from editors and associate editors at a wide range of accounting journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the review process and the roles of a reviewer and editor within a review process before publishing a paper in a journal. The review process is designed to protect the author, the journal and the readers from publication of fallacious papers because informations are kept in archives that might influence the future generations.

The article presents the author's reflections on serving as an editor of the "Journal of Marketing." The editor highlights the changes that have occurred in the marketing journal and what these changes suggest about the nature of markets and marketing practices.He discusses his perspective as an editor on what is most likely to be valuable to the discipline in the future. He also offers several suggestions for those attempting to get published in the "Journal of Marketing," including what researchers can do to decrease the likely that they will have their work accepted for publication.

This article presents the report of the editor of the "Journal of Finance," for the year 2000. The transition from the previous editor, Rene Stulz, and the Ohio State University office, to the current editor and new offices at Carnegie Mellon University has gone well. A temporary increase during the transition period in the number of printed pages of the "Journal of Finance" has been relaxed. As a result, approximately a dozen fewer papers will be published in 2001 than during the previous year. Submissions of prospective papers continue to be brisk.

This note discusses several ways to make journal articles more readable. It discusses the incentives of editors to publish “good,” readable papers, and some common misconceptions about publishing articles. Some suggestions for Improving a paper's likelihood of publication and its impact on the profession once published include writing the paper for the largest possible target audience; circulating the paper to colleagues before submission; summarizing the paper's major findings early and clearly; limiting the number of footnotes, acronyms, and mays; and making the tables' titles and legends descriptive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Trying to publish a paper in a top-rated peer-reviewed journal can be a difficult and frustrating experience for authors. It is important that authors understand the general review process before submitting manuscripts for publication. OBJECTIVES: Editors-in-chief and associate editors from top-tier journals such as Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), Toxicological Sciences, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, and Chemical Research in Toxicology were asked to provide guidance concerning the writing and submission of papers to their journals. DISCUSSION: The editors reviewed the manuscript review process for their journals, elaborated on the evaluation criteria for reviewing papers, and provided advice for future authors in preparing their papers. CONCLUSIONS: The manuscript submission process was similar for all of the journals with the exception of EHP that includes an initial screening in which about two-thirds of submitted papers are returned to the authors without review. The evaluation criteria used by the journals were also similar. Papers that are relevant to the scope of the journal, are innovative, significantly advance the field, are well written, and adhere to the instructions to authors have a higher likelihood of being accepted. The editors advised potential authors to ensure that the topic of the paper is within the scope of the journal, represents an important problem, is carefully prepared according to the instructions to authors, and to seek editorial assistance if English is not the primary language of the authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The purpose of this study was to characterize the publication fate of a recent 2-year sample of manuscripts declined by Academic Emergency Medicine ( AEM), the journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of manuscripts submitted to AEM in 2010 and 2011 that were declined by the AEM editorial review process. An online search was conducted for each declined paper, to determine whether or not it was published in another clinical/scientific journal after being declined by AEM. The investigators used Scopus and Google Scholar, using the submitting author's name, the verbatim title, and key words and phrases from the title, to search for subsequent publication of each paper. Results Of 1,542 manuscript submissions to the journal in 2010 and 2011, 1,052 papers were declined. Of these, 693 (65.9%) were subsequently published elsewhere, in a total of 229 journals: 362 papers in 22 different EM journals, 81 in 14 EM subspecialty journals, 237 in 185 non- EM journals, and 13 in eight nursing journals. Papers were published a median of 16.7 months (interquartile range [ IQR] = 11.8 to 22.0 months) after being declined at AEM. Of the 229 journals, 19 do not have h-indices. The median h-index of the remaining 210 journals is 36 ( IQR = 17 to 64; maximum = 229; AEM's h-index is 78). Thirty of these 210 journals, publishing 43 papers, have higher h-indices than AEM; the other 650 papers were published in journals either with lower h-indices than AEM's ( n = 180 journals) or in journals without h-indices ( n = 19 journals). U.S. and non-U.S. authors had similar rates of subsequent publication (65.3% vs 66.6%, p = 0.69) for papers initially declined by AEM. Papers in the educational advances category were less likely to be subsequently published than those in the original contributions (p < 0.0001) and brief reports (p = 0.0137) categories. Conclusions Nearly two-thirds of manuscripts declined by SAEM's journal are eventually published elsewhere, in a large number and wide variety of both EM and non- EM journals, in a median of 16.7 months. Authors of manuscripts declined by AEM should consider submission elsewhere, as subsequent publication of these manuscripts in another journal is probable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the report of the Managing Editor of the "Journal of Finance" for the year 1996. The editor reports an increase of 68 submissions over last year, with an acceptance rate over nine percent. The editor is addressing the backlog by offering the papers through the World Wide Web. The editor is visiting the Harvard Business School for the academic year, and through the use of overnight mail, faxes and email, is able to handle the editing of the publication. The editor also notes the contribution of the referees who help review papers for publication.

The author reflects on the discontinuation of four year of editorship in journal Occupational and Organizational Psychology (JOOP). He states the running the journal requires teamwork and he is honored to work with editorial board. He also comments the high quality of the paper in the journal JOOP increased substantially. The author concludes that JOOP survived enormously past 4 years in the field of work and organizational psychology.

In this article, the author talks about the developments at the "Asia Pacific Journal of Management" (APJM) as of September 2014. Topics discussed include the journal's focus on impact factors, its adherence to publication ethics, and its editorial review board. Also mentioned are senior editors John Matthews, Peter Ping Li, and Ajai Guar.

As a punishment for his trickery, King Sisyphus was made to endlessly roll a huge boulder up a steep hill. The maddening nature of the punishment was reserved for King Sisyphus due to his hubristic belief that his cleverness surpassed that of Zeus himself. Today's scientists also pay a heavy price for their hubris and narcissism. They try to trick the editors of a few 'top' journals by peppering their papers with glitter and 'bling-bling', making overblown promises, and giving minimal credit to their predecessors. The editors wield their Olympian authority by making today's scientists endlessly push their weighty boulders up steep hills. By bowing to this implacable ritual, we scientists confer undue power to a handful of popular but irresponsible journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses about the publication of papers. A short time to publication after a meaningful and careful review process is very desired by authors. All papers, including those in special issues, are reviewed by at least two specialists in the subject matter as well as by the Associate/Guest Editors handling the papers. The increased budgeted pages should reduce the average time to publication by the current delay of queuing time of about four months. The Objective of Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Society is to reach an average of eight months from submission to publication. To achieve this objective cooperation is sought of the reviewers to complete their reports within a reasonable time of four weeks and authors to complete the required revisions as mandated by the reviewers, in the majority of cases that do not require major additional work, also within a reasonable time of four weeks. Thus most papers hopefully could be published within a shorter time using the online submission.

The article focuses on issues concerning peer-reviews of research papers. According to the author, reviewers are forced to make choices about which papers to review, and they are often willing to review a paper within only a fairly narrow scope that is of immediate relevance to their research. This limits the pool of qualified reviewers for particular papers and hampers the review of interdisciplinary papers. Moreover, according to the author, fresh opinions can also help journal editors make decisions on a paper that might otherwise suffer the poor effects of reviewer fatigue.

This article informs that many biologists are protesting a decision by the editors of the journal Cell to retract a paper without the authors' assent or any allegations of misconduct. In July 2004, a group at the University of Brasilia published a widely noted paper claiming that experiments in chickens and rabbits showed that the parasite responsible for Chagas disease actually transfers DNA to the host genome. Scientists agree that the paper, which was the first to claim integration of parasite DNA into a host genome, is controversial, and some doubted the finding from the start. Nonetheless, many biologists are alarmed at the failure of the journal to supply the evidence on which the retraction was based. Microbiologist David Engman of Northwestern University School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, adds that he knows of "maybe a dozen" people in parasitology alone who have written Cell editors to protest. Engman says a colleague asked by Cell to review a paper is now wondering if he should bother because the paper "may be reversed postpublication."

The author recounts her experience serving as action editor for a three-person panel that was reviewing a paper submitted to the"Academy of Management Journal" for publication. As action editor it was her responsibility to apprise the paper's authors of the reviewers' critiques, which sometimes varied widely. As the manuscript was revised it sometimes became frustrating when reviewers held diverging opinions about the quality of the revisions. In the end, however, they did reach a consensus to publish the paper. Her advice to authors is to handle one's emotions constructively during the review process, and to try to see things from the editor's perspective.

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to develop an understanding how to successfully develop, write up and get research work accepted and published in an English language business research journal. Design/methodology/approach - A review of good basics in writing, producing good scholarly academic writing, presentation of papers that are in a style that is proper for academic English language journals and how to avoid common writing problems and mistakes. Findings - Getting research work published requires persistence, people and progress. One must have persistence in seriously approaching and improving one's research work. Researchers need to involve a network of people (conference attendees, people who understand the area, reviewers and editors) to develop good research. Research should lead to progress in our understanding of the way the world works. Practical implications - This paper helps authors readily bring their research to publishable quality in English language research journals by reducing pitfalls to authors writing in English as a foreign language. Originality/value - By providing not only sound practical advice, and how to avoid potential errors, the paper also provides graphic diagrams and a checklist for research writing that will aid authors writing in English as a foreign language in readily bringing their research to publishable quality in English language research journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses events and changes that took place at the offices of "Academy of Management Journal" during the three years Angelo DeNisi acted as editor. Criticism of DeNisi's work as editor is discussed. Many felt that DeNisi favored micro research too heavily, while others argued that he did not publish enough micro papers. The author mentions the number of manuscripts received for review and publication during this time. While the majority of submitted papers were rejected, a number of those that were accepted by established scholars are mentioned.

The article reports on the resignation of Bambang Parmanto, the editor-in-chief of "The Open Information Science Journal" in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It notes that the Parmanto claimed the its publisher Bentham Science Publishing received a fake article without his knowledge. Mahmood Alam, director of publications at Bentham Science Publishing emphasizes the conviction of submitting fake manuscripts because of its being unethical.

This article presents a final report of the editor of the "Journal of Investigative Dermatology," which highlights the arguments about various papers published in the journal related to dermatology in the year 1991. The number of pages published as original reports in 1991 was significantly increased. This was not due to an increase in acceptance rate but was due to several factors. The Profile of publications in 1991 shows an increase in high impact manuscripts, in rapid communications, and in "Letters to the Editor". This is a healthy trend to diversify the various ways of transmitting information, exciting papers using cutting-edge techniques, preliminary reports demonstrating new findings and dialogue in letters on controversies.

Presents an article about the publication of articles. Ideas that crowded the mind when a writing a draft about poet Homer, including the observation of philosopher Aristotle on the epic poem "Odyssey"; Reasons behind the rejection of the draft; Suggestions on publishing articles such as creation of commitments and gratefulness for the feedback of referees and editors.

Purpose. The periodical "The Wanderer" is a tourist and sightseeing magazine that was published for 44 years between 1863 and 1906 on the Polish territory. It is an irreplaceable source of knowledge about the birth and development of tourism and sightseeing. To date, "The Wanderer" has not been the subject of comprehensive research. In literature, there is a lot of scattered, incomplete and incorrect information about it. The aim of this article is to organise the existing knowledge about it, correct errors and fill in gaps regarding the formal activity and functioning of the magazine on the publishing market. The ratio of such an action is the observation that the history of the travel, tourism and sightseeing press, as a source for the study of the rich and complex tourism history in the Polish lands, should be supported by knowledge of the formal publishing activity of the paper. Method. In order to prepare the paper, the critical analysis method of sources and available literature was mainly used, as well as the repeatedly tested comparative method. Findings. "The Wanderer" was one of the longest-running magazines on the publishing market until 1906. In 44 years, 2,289 issues were published. During this period, it functioned in a fairly stable manner on this market. Research and conclusions limitations. All determinations regarding "The Wanderer" were made on the basis of the magazine itself or other source materials. Unfortunately, no editorial archives of "The Wanderer" have been found that would allow for unambiguous resolution of certain dilemmas. Practical implications. The formal characteristics of the journal are the foundation on which further research related to the activities of the publisher should be based. It is a necessary element enabling the development of a monograph on the journal. Originality. "The Wanderer" has not been the subject of comprehensive research so far, both within the context of issues related to tourism raised on its pages or in the formal context connected with its activities on the publishing market. All information appearing in the literature to date, concerning the period of its publication, editorial and publishing teams, as well as information on its profile, contain a number of inaccuracies, errors and are incomplete. In this article, a comprehensive formal characterisation of "The Wanderer" is provided. Type of paper. Monographic article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses his experience serving as the action editor for a three-person panel that reviewed an academic paper submitted for publication. Opinions varied among the reviewers as to the paper's merit, and after a revised manuscript was submitted one of the editors thought the paper had deteriorated in quality. This same reviewer still had reservations after a third edition arrived, but the author decided they were not strong enough to prevent him from conditionally accepting the manuscript for publication. The experience convinced him that papers benefit considerably from peer review, and from authors' willingness to honestly address reviewers' concerns.

The article focuses on studies related to the editorial and commercial practices of bioethics journals published in periodical "Journal of Bioethical Inquiry." It states that members of editorial boards of several journals were grouped and studied according to the human development index (HDI) of their country of residence. It mentions a research conducted to study the availability of bioethical journals in academic libraries in the Global South.

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article offers a guide for economists on research manuscript publication. Research work is mostly published in books and refereed journals. While book editors are looking for content that will sell, journal editors seek articles that have new and worthwhile information. The most important rule for economists to understand is that an article can be sent to only one journal at a time. Book manuscripts can be sent to many publishers at the same time. Advice is offered on dealing with rejection when an article submitted to a journal is flatly rejected. Rejections are more common in economics journals that other disciplines and many famous economics articles were rejected by several journals before being published.

The author reflects on future plans for the magazine "Management Science" in his position as editor. He will continue to have scholarly articles published on the subject matter of management science which are relevant, correctly researched, and significant to management science. However, he has created new department titles and instituted a reasonable review cycle system for the review of submitted articles.

The author offers his thoughts on how changes are done in the operations of the periodical so that its vision and mission will be accomplished. He said that among the accomplishments include the processing of more than 1500 papers, the increase in the number of annual issues, the addition of several new associate editors, as well as the clearing of the backlog of pre-Allentrack affirmed papers by expediting their publication.

Are codes of ethics needed to guide author, reviewer and editor publishing practices in accounting journals? What practices are considered unethical, and to what extend do they occur? A survey of ninety-five journal editors who publish accounting articles rated author, reviewer and editor practices as ethical or unethical, and estimated the frequency with which these practices occur. Respondents also commented on current publishing practices regarding the double-blind review process, payments for reviews, confirmatory bias, and whether codes of ethics are needed for the publication process. More than half the editors supported the status quo, and felt that codes were not necessary for editors and reviewers. They were evenly split on the question of an author code of ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the guidelines in the submission and publication of manuscripts for the journal "Milbank Quarterly." Manuscripts should be sent electronically. The journal's editor will make an initial determination about the suitability of the manuscript. The length of submitted material should not exceed 30 pages, including references and abstract.

The author offers information on the journal "Educational Studies in Mathematics." The journal was founded in 1968 by Hans Freudenthal and the author first became acquainted with the journal at Cambridge, England, in the early 1980s, when Alan Bishop was the editor. D. Reidel Publishing Co., a subsidiary of Kluwer Academic Publishers, published the journal four times a year in those days. In September 1994, Ken Ruthven of England became an editor and with Volume 30 in January 1996 he became editor-in-chief. The author says to have joined the editorial board with volume 36 in June 1998. Editors of the journal are said to aim fostering articles of the highest quality and relevance and making the journal increasingly more international.

The article presents editor's view for not introducing paper of this issue as all the articles are strong and do not need any introduction. The editor regrets for not publishing his promised "Thanks to Our Reviewers" for Volume 12 due to computer hard drive failure. He promises to publish this in next issue.

No abstract received. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Provides information on the publication staff and 2004 publishing report of editors of the "Journal of the Royal Statistical Society." Completion of term of Anthony Davidson as editor of the journal in 2004; Papers submitted from September through August 2004; Theme of articles featured in the 2004 issue of the periodical.

The article discusses the efforts of the "International Public Management Review" (IPMR) journal editors to launch a process of publishing manuscripts that is not too restrictive to provide a forum for sharing ideas in the field of public management. It cites the consideration of the managing editor to publish a commentary paper by a critical reviewer and a response from the author if desired. It notes that the editor will also recommend that the author works with a mentor to improve his paper.