Search

The peer-review process used in most academic journals is critical for curating evidence-based knowledge. Although many graduate programmes expect students to engage in the research process, these programmes often do not mandate formal training for the publication process. With few studies examining the graduate student experience in the publication process, the current study sought to help address this gap. Specifically, we used a reflexive thematic analysis approach to look at 18, hour-long, semi-structured interviews with Education graduate students at the master's and doctoral level. Using a revised version of Kolb's experiential learning theory to contextualise the results, we highlight three main areas related to participants' experiences engaging in the publication process: a) experiences and motivations, b) challenges, and c) pathways to publishing. Based on these findings, we offer implications for higher education to support graduate students' readiness to engage in the publication process as future scholars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the scientific merit of the submitted work and to assess suitability for publication. This process is intended to provide an unbiased, independent critique to ensure publication of high-quality manuscripts that demonstrate validity and reliability. Reviewers are subject-matter experts who volunteer their time to participate in peer review. A proper review provides constructive and helpful feedback in a timely manner that authors can use to improve both current and future work. When given the opportunity to revise, authors should carefully consider all comments and adequately address all concerns. This paper provides guidance to clinicians for both aspects of the peer review process: participating as a reviewer and responding to reviewer feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Perioperative nurses can share their expertise by writing for publication in a peer‐reviewed journal. Writing can help perioperative nurses grow their professional careers and advance the science of the perioperative nursing specialty. Despite the value and importance of publishing, perioperative nurses may lack confidence and fear rejection and negative feedback; increasing their knowledge and understanding of the authoring and publishing processes can assuage these fears. This education article describes concepts associated with scholarly publishing for authors and offers strategies to encourage perioperative nurses to share their practice experiences or research via peer‐reviewed journals. Key steps associated with the writing and publication process are described. The article also explains the editorial and peer‐review processes and provides supportive strategies for authors when a manuscript is not accepted initially. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Medical student master’s theses are often carried out as research projects, and some are published as research papers in journals. We investigated the percentage of master’s theses conducted by 5th -year students at the Medical Degree Program at Lund University, Sweden, that subsequently served as the basis for research publications. In addition, we explored both student and supervisor experiences with the publishing process. Methods A cohort of four semesters of student data covering the period from 2019 to 2020 (n = 446) was searched in PubMed, Embase and the Web of Science to assess whether they had been published as research papers. Surveys were sent to students (n = 121) and supervisors (n = 77) to explore their experiences with the publishing process. Results We found that 33% (149 of 446) of the students in the 2019–2020 cohort subsequently published their theses, and 50% of these students were listed as first authors. Most students published original research. Students (n = 21) and supervisors (n = 44) reported that the publishing process was time-consuming and that students needed multilevel support from supervisors to achieve successful publication. The publishing process was reported by 79% of the students to have led to additional learning. Most of the papers (126 of 149, 85%) had a clinical or patient-oriented focus. Conclusion A high percentage of the student publications in which students are listed as first authors require engagement from both students and supervisors. Supervisors play an essential role in supporting students in a successful publication process. Most of the published papers were either clinical or patient-oriented research.

We update the Wood (2016) survey about academics' perceptions of the review and publication process. We find that accounting academics generally perceive the overall process has not improved or has become worse since 2015. Respondents think acceptance rates in top journals should nearly double, there is too much focus on publishing in top journals, and top journals favor certain topic areas and methodologies. They also believe that reviewers and editors underweight practice relevance and overweight the criteria of incremental contribution, method, and rigor. These opinions are held more strongly by new assistant professors than prior assistant professors, suggesting the rising generation has stronger negative views of the publication process than the past generation. The perceptions are also held by the leaders of the journals, suggesting the results are not the opinions of a few disgruntled academics. We provide additional commentary about changes the academy should consider based on these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medical student master's theses are often carried out as research projects, and some are published as research papers in journals. We investigated the percentage of master's theses conducted by 5th -year students at the Medical Degree Program at Lund University, Sweden, that subsequently served as the basis for research publications. In addition, we explored both student and supervisor experiences with the publishing process. Methods: A cohort of four semesters of student data covering the period from 2019 to 2020 (n = 446) was searched in PubMed, Embase and the Web of Science to assess whether they had been published as research papers. Surveys were sent to students (n = 121) and supervisors (n = 77) to explore their experiences with the publishing process. Results: We found that 33% (149 of 446) of the students in the 2019–2020 cohort subsequently published their theses, and 50% of these students were listed as first authors. Most students published original research. Students (n = 21) and supervisors (n = 44) reported that the publishing process was time-consuming and that students needed multilevel support from supervisors to achieve successful publication. The publishing process was reported by 79% of the students to have led to additional learning. Most of the papers (126 of 149, 85%) had a clinical or patient-oriented focus. Conclusion: A high percentage of the student publications in which students are listed as first authors require engagement from both students and supervisors. Supervisors play an essential role in supporting students in a successful publication process. Most of the published papers were either clinical or patient-oriented research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper highlights the role of editors and reviewers as mentors to future generations of scholars. The author shares personal recollections and experiences that document TCR's long-standing commitment to promoting publication as a learning experience. Looking forward, the paper forecasts the impact of Teachers College Record initiatives in blending tradition and innovation to share the voices of scholars worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim: Financial scholars around the world have published a large number of articles on the financial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis on various sectors of the economy. This article is a critical analysis of the process of publishing articles in this field in Iran. Materials and methods: This applied study was conducted based on bibliometrics. The statistical population of the study included all articles published in the financial journals approved by the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology in the financial field of the coronavirus pandemic in Iran from February 2020 to January 2023. The research data were also collected using a checklist and analyzed using Excel software. Findings: While the crisis of COVID-19 provided researchers with many and varied study opportunities in the financial field of COVID-19 pandemic, the results of this study showed that Iranian researchers were able to publish only seven articles in this field in 11 scientific journals approved by the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology in the educational discipline of finance with different trends in Iran. Conclusion: Iranian universities have failed to publish articles related to the financial field of COVID-19 pandemic, and research in this field has been limited to a few specific issues and other important financial topics have been ignored.

In this brief mentoring corner article, we focus on defining what different editorial decisions mean (e.g., accept with revisions; revise and resubmit; reject: revise and resubmit), discussing factors you might consider when deciding what to do after receiving a decision (e.g., resubmit or move on) and considering how to best approach the revisions. We also provide guidance on effective communication with editors, including an example of a successful response to review table and cover letter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is to clarify the academic writing process and stages of publication for novice scholars. With doctoral student mentorship being highly dependent on relationships with faculty mentors, the quality and type of mentorship received varies widely. We designed this article to provide a shared starting point for new scholars trying to navigate the writing and publication process. We use our experiences as three newly tenured faculty members to provide some guidance for students. Additionally, this article adds to the existing body of knowledge on the academic writing process by bringing some hidden curriculum and norms to the forefront and making the information available to all students. Article highlights include four areas of focus of academic publishing: (a) the presentation to publication process; (b) journal choice and preparing for journal submission; (c) revision as a communal process; and (d) the journal response. Within this article, we have recommended several places where new scholars can make decisions ranging from where to submit papers, who and how to ask for help, and ways that they can respond to reviewers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As editors it is our intent to continually improve the quality of both published articles for our readers and reviews received by our authors here at Transportation Journal. With that purpose in mind, this article seeks to draw parallels between the editorial review process and supply chain collaboration, helping us practice what we teach. Importantly, the review process is intended to co-create value among authors and reviewers under the guidance of the editors. While Transportation Journal already has a core group of scholars who excel in both roles as authors and reviewers, our goal is for this editorial to serve as a guide for our extended network of contributors to adopt an enhanced, collaborative approach. In doing so, we believe that the intended results will ultimately lead us toward production process that is at an even higher quality to generate even greater value for the community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim: Financial scholars around the world have published a large number of articles on the financial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis on various sectors of the economy. This article is a critical analysis of the process of publishing articles in this field in Iran. Materials and methods: This applied study was conducted based on bibliometrics. The statistical population of the study included all articles published in the financial journals approved by the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology in the financial field of the coronavirus pandemic in Iran from February 2020 to January 2023. The research data were also collected using a checklist and analyzed using Excel software. Findings: While the crisis of COVID-19 provided researchers with many and varied study opportunities in the financial field of COVID-19 pandemic, the results of this study showed that Iranian researchers were able to publish only seven articles in this field in 11 scientific journals approved by the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology in the educational discipline of finance with different trends in Iran. Conclusion: Iranian universities have failed to publish articles related to the financial field of COVID-19 pandemic, and research in this field has been limited to a few specific issues and other important financial topics have been ignored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines commonly applied methods of data analysis. Predicated on these methods, the main issue pertains to the plausibility of the studies' end products, that is, their conclusions. I argue that the methods chosen often lead to unwarranted conclusions: the data analyses chosen tend to produce looked-for null rejections even though the null may be much more plausible on prior grounds. Two aspects of data analyses applied cause obvious problems. First, researchers tend to dismiss "preliminary" findings when the findings contradict the expected outcome of the research question (the "screen-picking" issue). Second, researchers rarely acknowledge that small p-values should be expected when the number of observations runs into the tens of thousands (the "large N" issue). This obviously enhances the chance for a null rejection even if the null hypothesis holds for all practical purposes. The discussion elaborates on these two aspects to explain why researchers generally avoid trying to mitigate false positives via supplementary data analyses. In particular, for no apparent good reasons, most research studiously avoids the use of hold-out samples. An additional topic in this paper concerns the dysfunctional consequences of the standard ("A-journal") publication process, which tends to buttress the use of research methods prone to false or unwarranted null-rejections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The reason of this research article is presents some principles establish in creative writing and publishing the article in any journal. Paper publishing is a very tough job and time-consuming process mostly in Pakistan. Even within Pakistan, there are a lot of journals we have, who making difficult to decide what appropriate venue is for one’s research and creative writing. Luckily, many of the obstacles along the writing and publishing path can be avoided by following some simple guidelines and practices. Methodology: The methodology of the research paper is supported on literature review and articles. Essential issues and barriers of publishing a research paper in any journal and conference is the aim of this study. By using examples of technology based learning and by explaining from literature review the manuscript acquired an interdisciplinary stance. Findings: findings of the study were made the understanding how to solve problems in creative writing and publishing problems of educational research in Pakistan. (a) Lake knowledge of important parts of a research paper. (b) Lake knowledge of how to describe data in data analyses. (c) Some may have weak critical thinking or brainstorming skills. (d) Some are not able to craft an impeccable research paper which lands in either of the HEC approved journals or in any international journal. (e) Few Researcher try to seek help from some external sources which may appear to offer them cheap research papers but in the end, may eventually rob them of a lot of money and will deliver them deplorable research papers.

Scientific publications are important for researchers to learn about earlier research in an area and also communicate their own research work. It helps the scholar and the publisher to achieve greater visibility to their research and to the reader to learn about an author's work. This paper reports the scientific publication process and reviews the existing literature on scholarly communication and evaluation. The concept of "stakeholders circle methodology" has been adopted to draw a generalised approach for visualising research impact. In this study, scientific publication process has been divided into two stages: pre-and post-publication. Both these stages have significant impact on the publication process, from communication to dissemination. In the pre-publication stage, various components such as creation (for novelty and integrity), evaluation (for generality and quality), and publishing (for copyright and cost) are discussed. In the post-publication stage, the outcomes (publications, patents and citations) hold significance, particularly in measuring research impact for greater visibility, promotion, rank and reputation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What does it mean to expand the epistemological terrain in education research to improve educational equity? This feature article attends to this question by opening a national conversation with education researchers who take up intersectionality in their study of Black women in higher education, specifically, the application of Kimberlé Crenshaw's intersectionality dimensions—structural, political, and representational. We surveyed the authors of 23 peer-reviewed research studies that engaged intersectionality across Crenshaw's dimensions. Findings showed that the majority of the studies were published in journals with low-impact factors. Additionally, authors indicated that they experienced pushback in the publishing process, including having to justify their work to journal editors and responding to reviewers who did not value their work. Implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Although the peer review process is believed to ensure scientific rigor, enhance research quality, and improve manuscript clarity, many investigators are concerned that the process is too slow, too expensive, too unreliable, and too static. In this feasibility study, we sought to survey corresponding authors of recently published clinical research studies on the speed and efficiency of the publication process. Methods Web-based survey of corresponding authors of a 20% random sample of clinical research studies in MEDLINE-indexed journals with Ovid MEDLINE entry dates between December 1 and 15, 2016. Survey addressed perceived manuscript importance before first submission, approximate first submission and final acceptance dates, and total number of journal submissions, external peer reviews, external peer reviewers, and revisions requested, as well as whether authors would have considered publicly sharing their manuscript on an online platform instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal. Results Of 1780 surveys distributed, 27 corresponding authors opted out or requested that we stop emailing them and 149 emails failed (e.g., emails that bounced n = 64, returned with an away from office message n = 70, or were changed/incorrect n = 15), leaving 1604 respondents, of which 337 completed the survey (21.0%). Respondents and non-respondents were similar with respect to study type and publication journals’ impact factor, although non-respondent authors had more publications (p = 0.03). Among respondents, the median impact factor of the publications’ journal was 2.7 (interquartile range (IQR), 2.0–3.6) and corresponding authors’ median h-index and number of publications was 9 (IQR, 3–20) and 27 (IQR, 10–77), respectively. The median time from first submission to journal acceptance and publication was 5 months (IQR, 3–8) and 7 months (IQR, 5–12), respectively. Most respondents (62.0%, n = 209) rated the importance of their research as a 4 or 5 (5-point scale) prior to submission. Median number of journal submissions was 1 (IQR, 1–2), external peer reviews was 1 (IQR, 1–2), external peer reviewers was 3 (IQR, 2–4), and revisions requested was 1 (IQR, 1–1). Sharing manuscripts to a public online platform, instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal, would have been considered by 55.2% (n = 186) of respondents. Conclusion Corresponding authors have high perceptions of their research and reported requiring few manuscript submissions prior to journal acceptance, most commonly by lower impact factor journals.

We have little knowledge about the prevalence of irreproducibility in the accounting literature. To narrow this gap, we conducted a survey among the participants of the 2019 JAR Conference on their perceptions of the frequency, causes, and consequences of irreproducible research published in accounting journals. A majority of respondents believe that irreproducibility is common in the literature, constitutes a major problem, and receives too little attention. Most have encountered irreproducibility in the work of others (although not in their own work) but chose not to pursue their failed reproduction attempts to publication. Respondents believe irreproducibility results chiefly from career or publication incentives as well as from selective reporting of results. They also believe that practices like sharing code and data combined with stronger incentives to replicate the work of others would enhance reproducibility. The views of accounting researchers are remarkably similar to those expressed in a survey by the scientific journal Nature. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings and provide several potential paths forward for the accounting research community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Authors analyze the path of the publication of a study starting from the choice of the journal. Subsequently they summarize the different systems of data reporting and how to format a manuscript according to well-established international editorial structures. In conclusion they suggest how to positively manage a rejection.

In this essay I describe aspects of the interactions between authors, reviewers and editors with the goal of helping early–career biologists navigate the publication process. Multiple authors and editors have commented on the current difficulties of obtaining quality referees for manuscript reviews, and as a consequence, the frequencies of rejections based on uninformed or erroneous reviews, may be increasing. I suggest a variety of strategies for dealing with: 1) manuscript rejections by editors without review, 2) editors who report but do not comment on reviewer comments, 3) reviews that appear to be uninformed or idiosyncratic, and 4) comments suggesting stylistic revisions rather than substantive ones. The key to any successful strategy for dealing with editors and referees involves ensuring the interaction remains civil and retains a high level of objectivity regarding criticism. In addition, the specific strategies that an author uses to respond to stylistic and substantive editorial comments will depend on their experience and perhaps, reputation in the field. The techniques suggested herein should serve to stimulate discussion of some problems in our field and also increase the probability of acceptance of a worthy manuscript submitted for publication.

A core feature of academic research is the peer review process. The thinking behind this process is straightforward: in an effort to ensure the validity of research, opinions regarding the reliability, thoroughness, and appropriateness of reports on research findings are solicited from outside experts before they are cleared for publication. However, little guidance is provided in the literature or in the development and training of scholars regarding precisely what constitutes effective peer review. The aim of this article is to help to fill this gap. Drawing on our experience as scholars and editors of academic journals, we trace the peer review process from the selection of reviewers through to the crafting of a coherent set of recommendations for the author(s) of a manuscript under consideration. We conclude by urging peer reviewers to approach the process with the care, professionalism, and rigor demanded by this fundamental part of the scholarly endeavor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on the study of multilingual speakers’ perception of their research writing practices in English and in their local language—Russian—and the publication process in English. It is based on interviews with 18 scholars from social sciences and humanities working in a leading university in Russia. The study discusses social factors influencing multilingual scholars’ choice of languages as well as their personal motivation to choose English as the main language of publication. Special attention is given to their attitude to proofreading as part of the publication process. The interview results suggest that, from the participants’ perspective, the benefits they gain by publishing research in English seem to outweigh costs they experience in the process of writing and publishing. The study contributes to the on-going debate about the position of multilingual scholars in the competition to publish in top-rated journals, suggesting that the traditional doctrine of linguistic injustice, from the participants’ point-of-view, does not seem to be relevant for every multilingual scholar.

Abstract Writing and publishing a scientific paper in academic journals is a highly competitive, time-consuming stepwise process. The road to scientific writing and publication is rarely straightforward. Scientific writing has uniform format, which is perplexing for the novice science writers due to its inflexible anatomy (structure) and physiology (functions). Many obstacles are allied with the scientific writing path which can be minimized by applying some simple guidelines and practices. The scientific papers have an almost similar format but, original articles are divided into distinct sections and each segment contains a specific type of information. The basic anatomy of scientific papers is mainly comprised of the structure of the various components of a scientific paper, including title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, acknowledgments and references. However, the physiology of a scientific paper is difficult to understand. Early career researchers and trainees may be less familiar with the various components of scientific papers. In this study, we applied an observational approach to describe the essential steps to facilitate the readers and writers to understand the basic characteristics, anatomy and physiology of writing the various sections of a scientific paper for an academic science journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mathematics seems to have a special status when compared to other areas of human knowledge. This special status is linked with the role of proof. Mathematicians all too often believe that this type of argumentation leaves no room for errors or unclarity. In this paper we take a closer look at mathematical practice, more precisely at the publication process in mathematics. We argue that the apparent view that mathematical literature is also more reliable is too naive. We will discuss several problems in the publication process that threaten this view, and give several suggestions on how this could be countered.

I discuss current issues in reviewing and editorial practices in ecology and evolutionary biology and suggest possible solutions for current problems. The reviewing crisis is unlikely to change unless steps are taken by journals to provide greater inclusiveness and incentives to reviewers. In addition, both journals and institutions should reduce their emphasis on publication numbers (least publishable units) and impact factors and focus instead on article synthesis and quality which will require longer publications. Academic and research institutions should consider reviewing manuscripts and editorial positions an important part of a researcher’s professional activities and reward them accordingly. Rewarding reviewers either monetarily or via other incentives such as free journal subscriptions may encourage participation in the reviewing process for both profit and non–profit journals. Reviewer performance will likely be improved by measures that increase inclusiveness, such as sending reviews and decision letters to reviewers. Journals may be able to evaluate the efficacy of their reviewing process by comparing citations of rejected but subsequently published papers with those published within the journal at similar times. Finally, constructive reviews: 1) identify important shortcomings and suggest solutions when possible, 2) distinguish trivial from non–trivial problems, and 3) include editor’s evaluations of the reviews including identification of trivial versus substantive comments (i.e., those that must be addressed).