Search

This quantitative study seeks out creative approaches (CA) to solve some of Google Scholar's shortcomings, notably a lack of clear database controls for resource format selection, along with an absence of a peer-reviewed button. As the primary endeavor, the research proposal targets three (theology-specific) research questions at Google Scholar to discover if certain techniques bring back a higher likelihood of journal articles. As a secondary concern, do the same approaches help readers identify peer-reviewed articles? In its findings, the CAs impacted the overall research questions differently. As intended, CA-3A and CA-3B both removed capstone papers from the search results; however, CA-3B cut too many journal articles, whereas CA-3A only reduced journal formats marginally. Successfully, all three variations of CA-4 deducted some book titles without affecting the journal formats; CA-4A performed the most helpful in both outcomes. For CA-5, it labeled journal articles with high precision, though not systematically. CA-5 also reflected the only approach of any value to assist detecting a peer-reviewed journal title. Lastly, all three CA-6 approaches considerably reduced the size of the search results. Notably, CA-6B aggressively removed book formats, while not inadvertently throwing out journal articles. Key terms: Academic dissertations; academic librarianship; book format; Boolean searching; comparative studies; database searching; Google Scholar; information retrieval [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Web has greatly reduced the barriers to entry for new journals and other platforms for communicating scientific output, and the number of journals continues to multiply. This leaves readers and authors with the daunting cognitive challenge of navigating the literature and discerning contributions that are both relevant and significant. Meanwhile, measures of journal impact that might guide the use of the literature have become more visible and consequential, leading to "impact gamesmanship" that renders the measures increasingly suspect. The incentive system created by our journals is broken. In this essay, I argue that the core technology of journals is not their distribution but their review process. The organization of the review process reflects assumptions about what a contribution is and how it should be evaluated. Through their review processes, journals can certify contributions, convene scholarly communities, and curate works that are worth reading. Different review processes thereby create incentives for different kinds of work. It's time for a broader dialogue about how we connect the aims of the social science enterprise to our system of journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory journals operate as vanity presses, typically charging large submission or publication fees and requiring little peer review. The consequences of such journals are wide reaching, affecting the integrity of the legitimate journals they attempt to imitate, the reputations of the departments, colleges, and universities of their contributors, the actions of accreditation bodies, the reputations of their authors, and perhaps even the generosity of academic benefactors. Using a stakeholder analysis, our study of predatory journals suggests that most stakeholders gain little in the short run from such publishing and only the editors or owners of these journals benefit in the long run. We also discuss counter-measures that academic and administrative faculty can employ to thwart predatory publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors comment on the process for assessing research and best practice. They examine the journal's open peer review experiment and how it might look for the journal. Ne type of open peer review offers generous feedback provided by reviewers. There are some misconceptions about developmental review. An editor has the responsibility to maintain the quality of the research.

Many journals, including the Journal of Neurochemistry, enable authors to list peer reviewers as 'preferred' or 'opposed' suggestions to the editor. At the Journal of Neurochemistry, the handling editor (HE) may follow recommendations or select non-author-suggested reviewers (non-ASRs). We investigated whether selection of authorsuggested reviewers (ASRs) influenced decisions on a paper, and whether differences might be related to a reviewer's, editor's or manuscript's geographical location. In this retrospective analysis, we compared original research articles submitted to the Journal of Neurochemistry from 2013 through 2016 that were either reviewed exclusively by non-ASRs, by at least one ASR, by at least one reviewer marked by the author as 'opposed' or none. Manuscript outcome, reviewer rating of manuscript quality, rating of the reviewers' performance by the editor (R-score), time to review, and the country of the editor, reviewers and manuscript author were analyzed using non-parametric rank-based comparisons, chisquare (x2) analysis, multivariate linear regression, one-way analysis of variance, and inter-rater reliability determination. Original research articles that had been reviewed by at least one ASR stood a higher chance of being accepted (525/1006 = 52%) than papers that had been reviewed by non-ASRs only (579/1800 = 32%). An article was 2.4 times more likely to be accepted than rejected by an ASR compared to a non-ASR (Pearson's x2(1) = 181.3, p < 0.05). At decision, the editor did not simply follow the reviewers' recommendation but had a balancing role: Rates of recommendation from reviewers for rejection were 11.2% (139/1241) with ASRs versus 29.0% (1379/4755) with non-ASRs (this is a ratio of 0.39 where 1 means no difference between rejection rates for both groups), whereas the proportion of final decisions to reject was 24.7% (248/1006) versus 45.7% (822/1800) (a ratio of 0.54, considerably closer to 1). Recommendations by non-ASRs were more favorable for manuscripts from USA/Canada and Europe than for Asia/Pacific or Other countries. ASRs judged North American manuscripts most favorably, and judged papers generally more positively (mean: 2.54 on a 1-5 scale) than did non-ASRs (mean: 3.16) reviewers, whereas time for review (13.28 vs. 13.20 days) did not differ significantly between these groups. We also found that editors preferably assigned reviewers from their own geographical region, but there was no tendency for reviewers to judge papers from their own region more favorably. Our findings strongly confirm a bias toward lower rejection rates when ASRs assess a paper, which led to the decision to abandon the option to recommend reviewers at the Journal of Neurochemistry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides information on the pee review process and editorial practices used by the periodical "[in]Transition: Journal of Videographic Film and Moving Image Studies."

Copyright of Tradução em Revista is the property of Faculdades Catolicas - Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro 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.)

Background: Journal editors have exercised their control over submitted papers having a high similarity index. Despite widespread suspicion of possible plagiarism on a high similarity index, our study focused on the real effect of the similarity index on the value of a scientific paper. Methods: This research examined the percent values of the similarity index from 978 submitted (420 published) papers in the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology since 2012. Thus, this study aimed to identify the correlation between the similarity index and the value of a paper. The value of a paper was evaluated in two distinct phases (during a peer-review process vs. after publication), and the value of a published paper was evaluated in two aspects (academic citation vs. social media appearance). Results: Yearly mean values of the similarity index ranged from 16% to 19%. There were 254 papers cited at least once and 179 papers appearing at least once in social media. The similarity index affected the acceptance/rejection of a paper in various ways; although the influence was not linear and the cutoff measures were distinctive among the types of papers, both extremes were related to a high rate of rejection. After publication, the similarity index had no effect on academic citation or social media appearance according to the paper. Conclusions: The finding suggested that the similarity index no longer had an influence on academic citation or social media appearance according to the paper after publication, while the similarity index affected the acceptance/rejection of a submitted paper. Proofreading and intervention for finalizing the draft by the editors might play a role in achieving uniform quality of the publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A list is presented of individuals who served as peer reviewers of articles submitted to the publication during 2015-2016, including Carla Aubry, Vincent Carpentier, and Sungwoo Kang.

The article provides information on the "Journal of Finance" during 2015, including a list of journal peer reviewers, a chart on article submissions to the journal and author affiliations with colleges and institutions.

The author reflects on the state of publishing in transportation research journals. Topics discussed include the growth in the number of journals about transportation, the concern about peer reviewing, and the pressure faced by editors associated with the increase in transportation scribbling. Also mentioned the comment of author George H. Borts about editing the periodical "American Economic Review."

A personal narrative is presented in which the author reflects on his experiences with the peer-review process of academic writing for the periodical "[in]Transition: Journal of Videographic Film & Moving Image Studies."

The article presents a report of the editors of the journal for 2016. A brief information about the journal, along with its promotion of the use of statistical and mathematical theory and methods in the biosciences. Other features include information about the editorial board, submission and acceptance statistics, and review times. Also discussed are sessions held by the journal at leading statistical conferences.

The article presents the guidelines for submitting articles to the "North American Journal of Fisheries Management." The journal's editorial policy is offered, with an emphasis on its mission of promoting communication among managers of the fisheries population. It also discusses manuscript categories, the review process, and publication charges. Criteria for manuscript preparation are noted.

The article discusses changes in the editorial staff of the art history periodical "Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte" and describes planned changes in the magazine's format and publishing. The periodical's publication in multiple languages is announced along with the continued use of double-blind peer review for prospective articles for the magazine.

The article focuses on the double blind review process of manuscripts for journals. It reflects on the conservative and moderate approach of the review process, that focuses on preserving the anonymity of authors and reviewing the manuscripts in a fairly and unbiased manner. It also discusses the moderate approach of double blind review, which allow authors to cite their own work by name and include the details of the citation in the reference list.

An essay is presented on editorials in the issues of "Judaica Librarianship" journal of the Association of Jewish Libraries. Topics covered include the finding that most of the editorials for each issue took longer than expected, refereeing of the journal, the changing technological environment in which libraries and the journal operate and the impact of the journal based on citations to it in basic texts for the field.

The peer review process is widely used by academic journals, including the Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS), to evaluate the quality of manuscript submissions relative to the journals' scholarly goals. Our overview suggests that the best reviews also facilitate the introduction of new and important ideas to the field. Content analysis of 156 past JIBS reviews found that the best reviews (highly rated reviews written by reviewers who won the JIBS best reviewer award in 2011 and 2012) shared many key features, including a focus on the overall contribution (potential impact) of the manuscript, a positive tone and specific suggestions for improvement. We also surveyed current JIBS action editors and found that, despite the importance of high-quality reviews for the advancement of the field, few recalled being formally trained or mentored on how to write them. To better understand the features of a good review, the editors rated the various features of the peer reviews on helpfulness, and they also rated how often these features are present in the reviews they receive. Based on the survey of action editors and the content analysis of previous reviews, this editorial offers detailed guidance for current and future reviewers on how to write helpful, developmental and possibly even award-winning peer reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When analysing the current practices in peer-reviewed research and scholarly publications in sports and recreation management, one is required to consider the purpose and audience of the research. The author of the present study suggests that there is a significant gap between the research community of scholars and the practitioners in sports and recreation management. The relationship that currently exists between the author of peer-reviewed works and the reader of the scholarly publications must be redefined. The review of the research and publication process will establish that the research and publication of scholarly manuscripts must be relevant to the daily practices and operations in the professions of sports and recreation management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aims of this study were to assess and compare the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) using AMSTAR and to compare the prevalence of meta-analysis in both review types. A literature search was undertaken to identify SRs that consisted of hand-searching five major orthodontic journals [American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (February 2002 to July 2011)] and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2000 to July 2011. Methodological quality of the included reviews was gauged using the AMSTAR tool involving 11 key methodological criteria with a score of 0 or 1 given for each criterion. A cumulative grade was given for the paper overall (0–11); an overall score of 4 or less represented poor methodological quality, 5–8 was considered fair and 9 or greater was deemed to be good. In total, 109 SRs were identified in the five major journals and on the CDSR. Of these, 26 (23.9%) were in the CDSR. The mean overall AMSTAR score was 6.2 with 21.1% of reviews satisfying 9 or more of the 11 criteria; a similar prevalence of poor reviews (22%) was also noted. Multiple linear regression indicated that reviews published in the CDSR (P < 0.01); and involving meta-analysis (β = 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.72, 2.07, P < 0.001) showed greater concordance with AMSTAR. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The authors provide details on the journal "Art & Perception." They state that it promotes dialogue between the arts and sciences and provides a widely accessible, peer-reviewed vehicle for disseminating original work from scientists and artists exploring the nature of perceptual experience. They note that the journal encourages artists and scientists to share ideas and knowledge and cooperate in a manner that advances both fields. They also introduce the articles featured in the issue.

The article discusses the five year anniversary and the history and development of the peer review system instituted by the Contemporanea journal for reviewing article submissions to the journal, with reference to the issues section of the journal. Topics discussed include procedures related to peer review and referees, details on statistics of article acceptance, procedures for the number of reviewers assigned to articles, and method of evaluation. A list of peer reviewers participating in the process is included.

The purpose of this article is to move readers toward a deeper understanding of and widened respect for autoethnography’s capacity as an empirical endeavor. An argument is presented in favor of autoethnography as empirical by translating information from its epistemological and methodological history across the AERA standards for reporting empirical social science research. Supporting evidence is drawn from samples of autoethnographic scholarship that emerged from an extensive literature review of first-tier, blind peer-reviewed journals with relatively low acceptance rates (i.e., 17% or less accepted for publication) that cater to an international audience of educational researchers. The journals include Harvard Educational Review, Anthropology and Education Quarterly, Teaching and Teacher Education, Qualitative Inquiry, Urban Review, Educational Studies, Journal of Latinos and Education, and Race, Ethnicity, and Education. The article concludes by imagining a rubric that may assist researchers, editors, and reviewers in translating autoethnographic scholarship as credible and defensible empirical research. To date, no such article has worked to demonstrate this important connection to open the potential empirical publication venues for autoethnography in our real world of promotion and tenure decision making in the academy that hinges increasingly on the integrity of the blind peer-review process. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Purpose – In editorial peer review systems of journals, one does not always accept the best papers. Due to different human perceptions, the evaluation of papers by peer review (for a journal) can be different from the impact that a paper has after its publication (measured by number of citations received) in this or another journal. This system (and corresponding problems) is similar to the information retrieval process in a documentary system. Also there, one retrieves not always the most relevant documents for a certain topic. This is so because the topic is described in the command language of the documentary system and this command does not always completely cover the "real topic" that one wants to describe. This paper aims to address this issue. Design/methodology/approach – Based on this statement classical information retrieval evaluation techniques were applied to the evaluation of peer review systems. Basic in such an information retrieval evaluation are the notions of precision and recall and the precision-recall-curve. Such notions are introduced here for the evaluation of peer review systems. Findings – The analogues of precision and recall are defined and their curve constructed based on peer review data from the journal Angewandte Chemie – International Edition and on citation impact data of accepted papers by this journal or rejected but published elsewhere papers. It is concluded that, due to the imperfect peer review process (based on human evaluation), if we want to publish a high amount of qualified papers (the ones we seek), several non-qualified papers should also be accepted. Originality/value – The authors conclude that, due to the imperfect peer review process (based on human evaluation), if we want to publish a high amount of qualified papers (the ones we seek), one will also accept several non-qualified papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the highlights of a survey that determined how chemistry education researchers rank peer-reviewed journals in chemistry education and science education in 2010. It details the impact factors for journals publishing chemistry education research, and the calculation of the impact factor of a particular journal. It shows how the rankings can be used as a method to identify the most prestigious journals in the field beyond impact factor values.

A list of individuals being acknowledged by "Construction Management and Economics" for acting as referees of the papers submitted to the journal is presented, including Carl Abbott, Alaa Abdou, and Alex Abiko.

Under the right circumstances, journal rankings or classifications may be useful tools for the evaluation of research. I state such conditions and argue that the use of classifications within an informed peer review system is no more dangerous or nefarious than its main alternative (pure peer review) in the human and social sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Journal rankings are not a viable instrument for a correct research assessment exercise. As I have tried to illustrate, journal ranking is a difficult task generating more damage than benefts. Also the evaluation exercise currently in progress in Italy seems to confirm this perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examine the characteristics of 663 Open Access (OA) journals in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology, then compare the OA journals with impact factors to comparable subscription journals. There is great variation in the size of OA journals; the largest publishes more than 2,700 articles per year, but half publish 25 or fewer. While just 29 percent of OA journals charge publication fees, those journals represent 50 percent of the articles in our study. OA journals in the fields of biology and medicine are larger than the others, more likely to charge fees, and more likely to have a high citation impact. Overall, the OA journal landscape is greatly influenced by a few key publishers and journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People that the authors would like to thank for reviewing articles in the periodical are mentioned including Shawn K. Acheson, Byron H. Adinoff and Ramon Bataller.

This article argues that the discipline of economics consists of two subdisciplines: heterodox and mainstream economics. Being distinct bodies of knowledge, it is possible that the processes of building scientific knowledge are different enough so to generate distinctly different referencing and citation practices. Therefore, a specific impact contribution score is necessary for ranking heterodox journals in terms of their contribution to building heterodox economics. If properly developed such a metric could also be used to produce a single overall quality-equality ranking of mainstream and heterodox journals. Utilizing citation data and peer evaluations of 62 heterodox economics journals, a research quality measure is developed and then used to rank the journals. The measure is then used in conjunction with the SSCI five-year impact factor to produce a comparative research quality-equality rankings of the 62 heterodox and the 192 mainstream journals in the SSCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer review has been in place for centuries as an accepted process to validate manuscripts submitted for publication in scientific journals. Yet a similarly rigorous assessment of content also happens a level up, when looking at the quality of journals that apply for indexing in bibliographic databases. Scopus, an abstract & citation database provided by Elsevier, indexing 18,000 scientific titles, is receiving an increasing number of title suggestions; in 2009 this grew to almost 5,000 in that year alone. Some of the suggested journals are dedicated to niche areas and/or are published in other languages than English. To ensure a fair and transparent evaluation of these titles and to address the rising interest in being indexed, Scopus redesigned its entire title evaluation process - basing it on a metrical scorecard and on the principles of peer review. By developing an online editorial system - the Scopus Title Evaluation Platform (STEP) - Scopus also created the prerequisite of an improved communication with publishers and editors about their journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A Web-based survey of faculty at all ACSP schools is used to assess the value peers place on various journals. The results of the survey show that two journals--the Journal of the American Planning Association and the Journal of Planning Education and Research--dominate all others in importance. The authors analyze the survey data to identify how the relative valuation of journals differs by individual faculty or institutional characteristics. The authors then test whether the journals' importance by peer judgment is related to journal impact factors. The results demonstrate clearly there is no correlation between the two. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

El artículo ofrece información sobre los artículos recibidos y aceptados para publicación en la Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa durante el período septiembre 2008 - septiembre 2009. Se presentan datos sobre la procedencia (nacional y extranjera) de los artículos aceptados y se hace mención del proceso de arbitraje para la aceptación de artículos. También se incluye información sobre las normas editoriales.

The article presents the editorial policies of the "Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery" with information on requirements and instructions to authors on the submission of manuscripts for review and publication. It also announces the Journal's use of the user-friendly and automated online system EzReprint for purchasing article reprints.

Abstract: A bit of history about the Data & Knowledge Engineering Journal is given in this article. Furthermore, lists of referees, of their assistants and of special-issue editors are given. Finally, some numbers about distribution of submissions over countries during the last 5 years, numbers of acceptance and rejects also per field of interest, and waiting times are provided. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Publishing activity as a measure of academic performance is a fertile research area and, frequently, leads to suggestions as to how such activity can be increased or receive greater recognition. This Commentary argues that the available evidence reveals that the majority of academics do not engage successfully and consistently in publishing. It is in the interests of policy-makers, administrators and academics, however, to maintain the illusion of its importance and prevalence. This serves both to promote the status and rewards of academics and it avoids the necessity of deciding how they should spend their time and how this should be measured and rewarded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Journal of European Public Policy was launched to fill a perceived intellectual gap in the market for European public policy research. It appears to have been a success but some luck was needed, good academic contacts, and a publisher willing to take a risk by committing quite large sums of money up front. Referees are hugely important for the success of a journal but this does not mean that editors should not occasionally exercise their own judgement. Evaluation and ranking of journals is a complex and unreliable process. Thus, the market is probably the best judge. If a journal sells well and subscriptions are rising it is probably ok! Submission fees seem a bad idea as authors already work for no pay. Payment for referees might work but is it really necessary? Finally, let us have more journals and more competition for our work.European Political Science (2007) 6, 15–19. doi:10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210115 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a list of individuals who acted as referees for manuscripts submitted to the "Accounting Education" journal in 2006. Names on the list include Patricia A. Addison from the Curtin University of Technology in Australia, Jane E. Baird from the Minnesota State University-Mankato in Minnesota, Charles Calhoun from the University of North Florida in Florida, Paul de Lange from RMIT University in Australia, and Clive Emanuel from the University of Glasgow in Scotland.

The process of peer review for submissions to scientific journals is a well-established and widely used procedure. However, there may still be room for improvement in the procedural aspects of peer review. Advantages and disadvantages of the current system, against the introduction of systems using either no anonymity, or double anonymity, are assessed. Recommendations to improve the robustness and fairness of the peer review process are proffered for the reader's consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports that a list of referees for 'Australian Geographical Studies: Journal of the Institute of Australian Geographers' was produced by the late editors, Murray McCaskill and Bob Bourman for the period 1992-1996.

Most scientists acquire their training in manuscript review not through instruction but by actually doing it. Formal training in manuscript analysis is rarely, if ever, provided. Editors usually choose reviewers because of expertise in a given subject area and availability. If an individual repeatedly submits bad reviews, it is likely that that person will not be asked to review a manuscript again. Being invited to review a manuscript is an honor, not only because you are being recognized for your eminence in a particular area of research but also because of the responsibility and service you provide to the journal and scientific community. The purpose of this article is to define how best to peer review an article. We will stipulate several principles of peer review and discuss some of the main elements of a good manuscript review, the basic responsibilities of a reviewer, and the rewards and responsibilities that accompany this process. Proper reviewer conduct is essential for making the peer review process valuable and the journal trustworthy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acknowledges the following people who have given their time to act as referees in the period mid-1999 to 2001, published in the December 2001 issue of the periodical "Planning Theory and Practice". David Adams; Louis Albrechts; Ernest Alexander; Andrew Allan; Rachelle Alterman; Roard Amdam; Andy Arrick.

The authors discuss the improvements made in the "Indian Journal of Anaesthesia" (IJA). It cites the requirements for reviewing manuscripts that should be based on several aspects including abstract completeness, simplicity and visibility of research methodology, and clarity and precision. It says that the journal has published a special article that describes the significant of peer reviewing in scholarly journals.

Discusses the systematic evidence that suggests the presence of response bias, among referees and journals in the social and natural sciences. Two studies cites by Doctor Epstein as the basis of his systematic evidence; Initial research idea based on Mahoney's 1977 work; Author's statement in positing the power of social work's refereed journals; Several issues raised by Doctor Epstein's work; Five important considerations in conducting reviews and improving overall process.

Acknowledges the assistance of referees for their contribution concerning the content and form of submitted papers in the January 1984 issue of "European Journal of Biochemistry."

Presents the annual reports of the Econometric Society for 1992, which includes an alphabetical list of "Econometrica" periodical referees. Names some of them: D. Abreu, R. Aiyagiri, K. Back, A. Brandenberger, R. Caballero, G. Constantinides, M.G. Dagenais, D. Diamantaras, D. Easley, M. Eichenbaum, B. Fallick, M. Florenzano, J. Gali, Y. Greenberg, A.R. Hall, J. Harrington, T. Ichiishi, H. Ichimura, M. Jackson, B. Jovanovic, D.G. Kabe, J. Krautkraemer, V. Lambson, M. Le Brenton, A. Ma, J. Montgomery, J. Nachbar, H. Neudecker, M. Obstfeld, M. Osborne, H. Pages, H. Polemarchakis, D. Quah, J. Quiggin, G. Ramey, S. Reichelstein, Z. Safra, M. Satterthwaite, K. Tadenuma, W. Trockel, C. Udry, H. Varian, S. Vassilakis, P. Wakker, J.M. Wooldridge, M. Yano, A. Yatchew, L. Zilcha, and H. Zaman.

The article focuses on the peer review in academic publishing in relation with originality and quality of research in written form. Topics discussed include responsibility to protect the reputation of journals and publisher, task of senior editors to act as peer reviewers and review coherence and stylistic conformity, and research in the performing arts.