Search

Copyright of Umsatzsteuer-Rundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Family Journal (TFJ) has experienced increases in manuscripts submitted for publication, especially from international scholars and quantitative researchers. This reverses a previous trend to publish more practice-oriented articles for our clinical readership. The journal will take efforts to balance theory, research, and practice. Some manuscripts are rejected for distribution to the editorial board (or "unsubmitted") due to problems conforming to the APA Publication Manual 7th Edition guidelines. Some submissions would benefit from reviews by colleagues and securing the services of an editor. Authors are asked to attend to guidelines concerning levels of headings and formatting of citations and references. Most importantly, authors should follow bias-free language guidelines. There are additional considerations in the desk review process such as including practice implications for Marriage and Family Counselors in the article and incorporating relevant previously published articles from TFJ in the literature review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This article aims to provide prospective authors guidelines that will hopefully enable them to submit more competitive manuscripts to journals publishing careers research. Design/methodology/approach: Based on their experience as an author, reviewer and editorial team member, the authors identify the main criteria that a quantitative study must meet to be considered for publication in international peer-reviewed journals covering career-related topics. They emphasize the importance of contributing to the careers literature and of designing the study in accordance with the research question. Findings: Manuscripts are rejected because they are insufficiently innovative, and/or because sample, instruments and design are not appropriate to answer the research question at hand. Cross-sectional designs cannot be used to answer questions of mediation but should not be discarded automatically since they can be used to address other types of questions, including questions about nesting, clustering of individuals into subgroups, and to some extent, even causality. Originality/value: The manuscript provides an insight into the decision-making process of reviewers and editorial board members and includes recommendations on the use of cross-sectional data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Socioloski Pregled is the property of Srpsko Sociolosko Drustvo and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The World Journal of Surgery (WJS) has announced that Wiley will be its new publisher, replacing Springer after 47 years. The decision to switch publishers was driven by the changing landscape of journal publishing and the need for a firm commitment to society-owned journals. Wiley was chosen for its support of the WJS's hybrid format and commitment to high-quality peer-reviewed content. The transition to Wiley required significant effort and patience from the WJS team, and they express gratitude to all involved. [Extracted from the article]

On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología, it is pertinent to remember how the current direction of the Journal was assumed: Which were the disadvantages faced back then and how were they overcome. In the previous issue, a historical tour was made and editorial committees and teams that have contributed to the RIB continue were remembered. In this opportunity, we will focus on the editorial process carried out since 2013, and on the projection to face the changes posed by the current scientific communication model, because it is clear that each change of time and technological advance have represented, and represent, a new challenge for the Editorial Team of the RIB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Len Fulton was a key figure in bridging the gap between libraries and the small press/little magazine movement that developed in the 1960s. As the founder and publisher of Dustbooks, Fulton sought to document the growth of independent publishing through the Dustbooks “skein” of directories that provided information about books and periodicals traditionally overlooked by library and mainstream publishing review sources. He also served as a cofounder of the Committee of Small Magazine Editors and Publishers, which attempted to organize independent publishers to find better distribution among libraries and bookstores. This article provides an overview of Fulton's accomplishments and influence among the American small presses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No abstract is available for this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

An introduction to the journal is presented in which the guest editor discuss changes within the publication of the journal including its new members of the editorial board.

Print academic journals are dead. As we watch large metropolitan newspapers fail (as are many small town newspapers), the same economic forces are driving online scholarly publishing. This phenomenon is more than print journals going online. The options available with new low-cost online publishing software and the rise in the ability to use ratings from user generated content suggest more near-term changes are likely. Many of the outcomes are unsettled: the economics of online publishing; the standards for peer review, rank, and tenure; and the very nature of scholarly publishing itself. What is certain, however, is that the economics of online academic publishing—modeled via Anderson’s Long Tail Theory—will make it possible to provide greater access, more collaboration, and, ultimately, improved research and researchers. Universities acting as publishing centers with their e-reserves will be expected to change their faculty evaluations, providing greater academic rewards for those who act as editors, reviewers, and proofreaders within this new born-online and only-online world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No abstract is available for this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]