Search

Bullying during the peer review process is an overlooked form of academic bullying. Measures to limit its negative impact are insufficient, necessitating new initiatives to protect individuals and the integrity of science. If unaddressed, peer review bullying will undermine diversity, equity, and inclusion, particularly harming early-career researchers and minorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using data on articles published in the top-five economics journals in the period 1991 to 2018, we explore whether the gender composition of editorial boards is related to the publishing success of female authors and to the quality of articles that get published. Our results show that a low level of representation of women on editorial boards harms the publishing success of female authors, while a higher level of representation increases the share of published articles that are (co-)authored by women. We also find evidence that female editors benefit article quality. While the number of unique female editors in our sample is rather small (a dozen), several robustness checks corroborate these findings, which are of direct relevance for the equity and efficiency of the academic publishing process. Our findings are broadly consistent with existing evidence on the behavior of gender-mixed hiring committees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academics from Pacific Rim expanding circle countries are increasingly expected to produce English language research articles. Writing for reputable journals requires an understanding of these journal editors' expectations. This paper describes one way in which editors' expectations have been demonstrated interactively to staff and post-graduate students at an Indonesian university. The exercise comprises a sequence of role-plays representing different steps of the manuscript review process. The material used was carefully selected from a public database to provide a 'manuscript' that reflected participants expectations of a research article and reputable editorial and peer-review assessment of the 'manuscript'. In each role-play participants compare their own assessments with that of real-life reviewers and editors. Agricultural Science participants' assessment of the acceptability of the 'manuscript' was closer to editors' expectations as a result of the exercise (the shift from 0% to 78% agreement was significant, p < 0.001). For participants from a similar background in the Pacific Rim expanding circle, the exercise should be useful without modification. Substantially changed perceptions were also observed for individuals from Education, Chemistry and Environmental Science. Overall, participants reported increased understanding of the publication process and the expectations of centre journals. They also actively recommended the course to others. • An exercise to raise awareness of centre journal editors' expectations is described. • Four role-plays address different steps of the manuscript review process. • Participants compare their assessment with that of real-life reviewers and editors. • Effectiveness of the pedagogical approach established at an Indonesian university. • Agricultural Science participants' perceptions shifted significantly by the exercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented which discusses about the reviews submitted by authors, standards of the Journal of Dairy Science, the editorial work by FASS, the editors that includes Susan Pollock, Louise Adam and Shauna Miller. It talks about different sections that includes dairy foods, farm systems, physiology, economics, the journals of Agriculture, Dairy and Animal Science category, Microbiology and safety for Production.

There was a time not that long ago when scientific communication happened only in print, with research papers, letters to the editor, and all other exchanges just appearing in issues mailed weeks or months after the papers were formally accepted. Learning about this research required a personal subscription to specific journals, a well-funded library, or attendance at conferences to hear the latest results and read newly released journal issues. Even as the web came into existence, the idea of using this new platform to make a scientific journal available around the country or even the world was simply not considered. That is, until the JBC--then under the leadership of Dr. Herb Tabor--decided they must find a way. Working with professors at Stanford and the newly formed Stanford service group, Highwire Press, "JBC Online" was born in 1995. In this article, as a tribute to Dr. Tabor's 100th birthday, I share my perspective and those of others involved in this transition as to what is so remarkable about the JBC going online. Specifically, I describe how Dr. Tabor's governance and leadership of the JBC, and within the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, brought together many threads in the research, society, publishing, and technological context of the time to make sure that the JBC not only made this remarkable leap, but made it first and farthest, and paved a path for many other, and now virtually all, journals to follow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is, in the content of the Journal, an embarrassment of riches, and picking a "best" seems to demand a certain qualification: is the "best" the most interesting, most surprising, most educational, most important, most provocative, most enjoyable? How to choose? We are hardly unbiased and can admit to a special affection for the ones that we and the authors worked hardest on, hammering version after version into shape. Acknowledging these biases, here are the 2018 articles that we think deserve your attention or at least a second read. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to a flood of papers and preprints, has placed multiple challenges on academic publishing, the most obvious one being sustained integrity under the pressure to publish quickly. There are risks of this high volume-to-speed ratio. Many letters, editorials, and supposedly "peer reviewed" papers in ranked and indexed journals were published in a matter of days, suggesting that peer review was either fleeting or non-existential, or that papers were rapidly approved by editors based on their perceived interest and topicality, rather than on their intrinsic academic value. In academic publishing circles, the claim of "peer review", when in fact it has not been conducted, is a core characteristic of "predatory publishing", and is also a "fake" element that may undermine efforts in recent years to build trust in science's budding serials crisis. While the world is still centrally focused on COVID-19, the issue of "predatory publishing" is being ignored, or not being given sufficient attention. The risks to the scholarly community, academic publishing and ultimately public health are at stake when exploitative and predatory publishing are left unchallenged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proper analysis and reporting of incomplete data continues to be a challenging task for practitioners from various research areas. Recently Nguyen, Strazdins, Nicholson and Cooklin (NSNC; 2018) evaluated the impact of complete case analysis and multiple imputation in studies of parental employment and health. Their work joins interdisciplinary efforts to educate and motivate scientists across the research community to use principled statistical methods when analyzing incomplete data. Although we fully support and encourage work in parallel to NSNC's, we also think that further actions should be taken by the research community to improve current practices. In this commentary, we discuss some aspects and misconceptions related to analysis of incomplete data, in particular multiple imputation. In our view, the missing data problem is part of a larger problem of research reproducibility and replicability today. Thus, we believe that improving analysis and reporting of incomplete data will make reproducibility and replicability efforts easier. We also provide a brief checklist of recommendations which could be used by members of the scientific community, including practitioners, journal editors, and reviewers to set higher publication standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This special issue is a memorial to Associate Professor Emilio Ghisalberti, a long-serving associate editor of Fitoterapia. His inspiring legacy of scientific discovery, publication and mentorship, along with anecdotes from his personal life, are summarised in this obituary. Image 1 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the editorial board of the Publisher including the composition and roles of the editorial board, their expertise in the field of education, and their contributions to the journal's editorial process and content selection.

The Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) is the official publication of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR). In 2016, the JCMR published 93 manuscripts, including 80 research papers, 6 reviews, 5 technical notes, 1 protocol, and 1 case report. The number of manuscripts published was similar to 2015 though with a 12% increase in manuscript submissions to an all-time high of 369. This reflects a decrease in the overall acceptance rate to <25% (excluding solicited reviews). The quality of submissions to JCMR continues to be high. The 2016 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2016 by Thomson Reuters) was steady at 5.601 (vs. 5.71 for 2015; as published in June 2016), which is the second highest impact factor ever recorded for JCMR. The 2016 impact factor means that the JCMR papers that were published in 2014 and 2015 were on-average cited 5.71 times in 2016. In accordance with Open-Access publishing of Biomed Central, the JCMR articles are published on-line in the order that they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, over the years, the Editors have felt that it is useful to annually summarize the publications into broad areas of interest or themes, so that readers can view areas of interest in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles. The papers are presented in broad themes with previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. In addition, I have elected to open this publication with information for the readership regarding the transition of the JCMR editorial office to the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston and the editorial process. Though there is an author publication charge (APC) associated with open-access to cover the publisher's expenses, this format provides a much wider distribution/availability of the author's work and greater manuscript citation. For SCMR members, there is a substantial discount in the APC. I hope that you will continue to send your high quality manuscripts to JCMR for consideration. Importantly, I also ask that you consider referencing recent JCMR publications in your submissions to the JCMR and elsewhere as these contribute to our impact factor. I also thank our dedicated Associate Editors, Guest Editors, and reviewers for their many efforts to ensure that the review process occurs in a timely and responsible manner and that the JCMR continues to be recognized as the leading publication in our field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A list of editors in the September 2017 issue of the "Journal of Hepatology" is presented including Richard Moreau, Raman Bataller and Thomas Berg.