Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
11 "Peer review"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Funded articles
Essay
Before you click “submit,” be your own first reviewer
Jean Iwaz
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):105-108.   Published online November 16, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.288
  • 3,222 View
  • 287 Download
AbstractAbstract PDF
For various reasons, despite previous linguistic, formatting, and other checks, beginner-authored or multi-authored manuscripts may be rushed to submission while lacking consistency. This article provides a clear outline of the final round of checks for section consistency, subsection consistency, and overall coherence that a scientific manuscript should undergo before submission. Checks for consistency should target the following: consistency between full and short titles; the exact answer in conclusion to research objectives (questions) and matching between methods and results in the abstract; consistency from a comprehensive view of the research field to the announcement of a single specific objective in the introduction section; coherence between methods and results sections and between results and illustrations in the rest of the text; and, recalls of the objective, the results, and the conclusions in the discussion section. Finally, consistency should be ensured between the various sections of the abstract and those of the manuscript, with the ideal abstract being a true miniature of the manuscript. An original figure provides a handy visual checklist authors might use to implement and achieve manuscript drafting. This round of checks increases readability, comprehensibility, confidence in the results, and the credibility of the authors. Subsequently, confidence and credibility will increase the probability of publication and the visibility of a whole team’s work.
Reviews
Types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review based on the literature and surgeons’ opinions via Twitter: a narrative review
Sameh Hany Emile, Hytham K. S. Hamid, Semra Demirli Atici, Doga Nur Kosker, Mario Virgilio Papa, Hossam Elfeki, Chee Yang Tan, Alaa El-Hussuna, Steven D. Wexner
Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):3-14.   Published online February 20, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.257
  • 5,846 View
  • 308 Download
AbstractAbstract PDF
This review aimed to illustrate the types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review (PR) based on a literature review together with the opinions of a social media audience via Twitter. This study was conducted via the #OpenSourceResearch collaborative platform and combined a comprehensive literature search on the current PR system with the opinions of a social media audience of surgeons who are actively engaged in the current PR system. Six independent researchers conducted a literature search of electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. Electronic polls were organized via Twitter to assess surgeons’ opinions on the current PR system and potential alternative approaches. PR can be classified into single-blind, double-blind, triple-blind, and open PR. Newer PR systems include interactive platforms, prepublication and postpublication commenting or review, transparent review, and collaborative review. The main limitations of the current PR system are its allegedly time-consuming nature and inconsistent, biased, and non-transparent results. Suggestions to improve the PR process include employing an interactive, double-blind PR system, using artificial intelligence to recruit reviewers, providing incentives for reviewers, and using PR templates. The above results offer several concepts for possible alternative approaches and modifications to this critically important process.
Artificial intelligence-assisted tools for redefining the communication landscape of the scholarly world
Habeeb Ibrahim Abdul Razack, Sam T. Mathew, Fathinul Fikri Ahmad Saad, Saleh A. Alqahtani
Sci Ed. 2021;8(2):134-144.   Published online July 27, 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.244
  • 19,111 View
  • 690 Download
  • 12 Web of Science
  • 14 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
The flood of research output and increasing demands for peer reviewers have necessitated the intervention of artificial intelligence (AI) in scholarly publishing. Although human input is seen as essential for writing publications, the contribution of AI slowly and steadily moves ahead. AI may redefine the role of science communication experts in the future and transform the scholarly publishing industry into a technology-driven one. It can prospectively improve the quality of publishable content and identify errors in published content. In this article, we review various AI and other associated tools currently in use or development for a range of publishing obligations and functions that have brought about or can soon leverage much-demanded advances in scholarly communications. Several AI-assisted tools, with diverse scope and scale, have emerged in the scholarly market. AI algorithms develop summaries of scientific publications and convert them into plain-language texts, press statements, and news stories. Retrieval of accurate and sufficient information is prominent in evidence-based science publications. Semantic tools may empower transparent and proficient data extraction tactics. From detecting simple plagiarism errors to predicting the projected citation impact of an unpublished article, AI’s role in scholarly publishing is expected to be multidimensional. AI, natural language processing, and machine learning in scholarly publishing have arrived for writers, editors, authors, and publishers. They should leverage these technologies to enable the fast and accurate dissemination of scientific information to contribute to the betterment of humankind.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Slow Writing with ChatGPT: Turning the Hype into a Right Way Forward
    Chitnarong Sirisathitkul
    Postdigital Science and Education.2024; 6(2): 431.     CrossRef
  • Navigating the impact: a study of editors’ and proofreaders’ perceptions of AI tools in editing and proofreading
    Islam Al Sawi, Ahmed Alaa
    Discover Artificial Intelligence.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Beyond Plagiarism: ChatGPT as the Vanguard of Technological Revolution in Research and Citation
    Hanni B. Flaherty, Jackson Yurch
    Research on Social Work Practice.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Capítulo 3. Inteligencia Artificial en la comunicación científica
    Sofía E. Calle-Pesántez, José Moisés Pallo-Chiguano
    Espejo de Monografías de Comunicación Social.2024; (23): 59.     CrossRef
  • MAATrica: a measure for assessing consistency and methods in medicinal and nutraceutical chemistry papers
    Giulia Panzarella, Alessandro Gallo, Sandra Coecke, Maddalena Querci, Francesco Ortuso, Martin Hofmann-Apitius, Pierangelo Veltri, Jürgen Bajorath, Stefano Alcaro
    European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.2024; 273: 116522.     CrossRef
  • Recent Issues in Medical Journal Publishing and Editing Policies: Adoption of Artificial Intelligence, Preprints, Open Peer Review, Model Text Recycling Policies, Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing 4th Version, and Country Names in Titles
    Sun Huh
    Neurointervention.2023; 18(1): 2.     CrossRef
  • Artificial intelligence-assisted medical writing: With greater power comes greater responsibility
    Rhythm Bains
    Asian Journal of Oral Health and Allied Sciences.2023; 13: 2.     CrossRef
  • Emergence of the metaverse and ChatGPT in journal publishing after the COVID-19 pandemic
    Sun Huh
    Science Editing.2023; 10(1): 1.     CrossRef
  • Author-Profile-Based Journal Recommendation for a Candidate Article: Using Hybrid Semantic Similarity and Trend Analysis
    Mehmet Yașar Bayraktar, Mehmet Kaya
    IEEE Access.2023; 11: 45826.     CrossRef
  • Utilization of artificial intelligence technology in an academic writing class: How do Indonesian students perceive?
    Santi Pratiwi Tri Utami, Andayani Andayani, Retno Winarni, Sumarwati Sumarwati
    Contemporary Educational Technology.2023; 15(4): ep450.     CrossRef
  • The impact of generative AI tools on researchers and research: Implications for academia in higher education
    Abdulrahman M. Al-Zahrani
    Innovations in Education and Teaching International.2023; : 1.     CrossRef
  • Editorial policies of Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions on the use of generative artificial intelligence in article writing and peer review
    Sun Huh
    Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2023; 20: 40.     CrossRef
  • Current Status of Neurointervention, the Official Journal of the Korean Society of Interventional Neuroradiology
    Dae Chul Suh, Sun Huh
    Neurointervention.2022; 17(2): 67.     CrossRef
  • Profiles of Technology Use and Plagiarism in High School Education
    Juan Carlos Torres-Diaz, Pablo Vicente Torres Carrión, Isidro Marín Gutierrez
    SSRN Electronic Journal .2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
Case Study
Development of an open peer review system using blockchain and reviewer recommendation technologies
Dong-Hoon Choi, Tae-Sul Seo
Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):104-111.   Published online February 20, 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.237
  • 5,501 View
  • 150 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 5 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
In order to create a transparent and sound academic communication ecosystem centered on researchers, we developed a system that applied blockchain technology to an open peer review system. In this study, an open peer review system was developed based on Hyperledger Fabric, which is a private blockchain. The system can be operated in connection with the reviewer recommendation module of the existing submission management system. In the reviewer recommendation module, reviewers are recommended by excluding co-authors and colleagues after an expertise test. The blockchain system performs an open peer review process based on smart contracts, while the submission management system selects reviewers for peer review. A service broker intervenes between these two systems for data interchange. The system developed herein is expected to be used as a researcher-centered scholarly communication model in the open science era, in which the intervention of publishers is minimized, and authors and reviewers (as researchers) are centered.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Blockchain solutions for scientific paper peer review: a systematic mapping of the literature
    Allan Farias Fávaro, Roderval Marcelino, Cristian Cechinel
    Data Technologies and Applications.2024; 58(2): 214.     CrossRef
  • A Novel Blockchain-Based Scientific Publishing System
    Mansur Beştaş, Ruhi Taş, Erdal Akin, Merve Ozkan-Okay, Ömer Aslan, Semih Serkant Aktug
    Sustainability.2023; 15(4): 3354.     CrossRef
  • Prospects of digital scientific publishing on blockchain: The concept of DAP
    Karolj Skala, Zorislav Šojat, Josip Maričević, Davor Davidović, Viktor Bojović, Tomislav Zubčić, Branimir Kolarek, Dario Pažin, Draško Tomić, Tadej Slapnik, Mario Pecimotika
    Open Research Europe.2023; 3: 117.     CrossRef
  • Bilimsel Yayın Deneyimleri: Editör, Hakem ve Yazar Olmak
    Özden ÖLMEZ CEYLAN, Aslı AĞIROĞLU BAKIR
    e-International Journal of Educational Research.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Role-Based Smart Contract: An Intelligent System for Scholarly Communication
    Eashwar Sivakumar, Paras Chawla
    SN Computer Science.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
Training Material
Reviewing a journal article with clarity and politeness: key language tips for non-native English-speaking reviewers
Yunhee Whang
Sci Ed. 2020;7(2):204-208.   Published online August 20, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.220
  • 10,684 View
  • 241 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 3 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
One of the important responsibilities of peer review in academic publishing is to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts by providing clear, constructive comments that are neither unpleasant nor disparaging. However, non-native English-speaking reviewers sometimes have difficulties in complementing or criticizing with clarity. It can also be difficult for reviewers to write appropriate and inter-culturally sensitive reviews. Thus, the goal of this paper is to help reviewers (and authors) improve clarity and achieve politeness in their writing. This paper focuses on understanding information structure (how information is generally arranged in a given context), cohesion (how ideas or sentences are connected), and emphasis (how to control emphasis with sentence structure or linguistic devices); it also introduces various politeness strategies for writing compliments and mitigating criticisms. The specific strategies include the use of conditionals, hedging, and pairing good news and bad news. Examples of effective and ineffective reviewer comments and cases of potential miscommunication that might occur between reviewers and authors are also presented. Developing skills to write peer review comments more clearly and politely enhances communication between reviewers and authors, which in turn further improves the journal’s overall quality.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Ten Tips for Performing Your First Peer Review: The Next Step for the Aspiring Academic Plastic Surgeon
    Martin Frendø, Andreas Frithioff, Steven Arild Wuyts Andersen
    Archives of Plastic Surgery.2022; 49(04): 538.     CrossRef
  • Ethics and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers to the Authors, Readers, and Editors
    Seung-Kee Min
    Vascular Specialist International.2021; 37(1): 1.     CrossRef
  • Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers
    Olena Zimba, Armen Gasparyan
    Rheumatology.2021; 59(1): 3.     CrossRef
Original Article
Data journals: types of peer review, review criteria, and editorial committee members’ positions
Sunkyung Seo, Jihyun Kim
Sci Ed. 2020;7(2):130-135.   Published online August 20, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.207
  • 7,183 View
  • 160 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 3 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
Purpose: This study analyzed the peer review systems, criteria, and editorial committee structures of data journals, aiming to determine the current state of data peer review and to offer suggestions.
Methods
We analyzed peer review systems and criteria for peer review in nine data journals indexed by Web of Science, as well as the positions of the editorial committee members of the journals. Each data journal’s website was initially surveyed, and the editors-in-chief were queried via email about any information not found on the websites. The peer review criteria of the journals were analyzed in terms of data quality, metadata quality, and general quality.
Results
Seven of the nine data journals adopted single-blind and open review peer review methods. The remaining two implemented modified models, such as interactive and community review. In the peer review criteria, there was a shared emphasis on the appropriateness of data production methodology and detailed descriptions. The editorial committees of the journals tended to have subject editors or subject advisory boards, while a few journals included positions with the responsibility of evaluating the technical quality of data.
Conclusion
Creating a community of subject experts and securing various editorial positions for peer review are necessary for data journals to achieve data quality assurance and to promote reuse. New practices will emerge in terms of data peer review models, criteria, and editorial positions, and further research needs to be conducted.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Dissemination effect of data papers on scientific datasets
    Hong Jiao, Yuhong Qiu, Xiaowei Ma, Bo Yang
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.2024; 75(2): 115.     CrossRef
  • The data paper as a sociolinguistic epistemic object: A content analysis on the rhetorical moves used in data paper abstracts
    Kai Li, Chenyue Jiao
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.2022; 73(6): 834.     CrossRef
  • Korean researchers’ motivations for publishing in data journals and the usefulness of their data: a qualitative study
    Jungyeoun Lee, Jihyun Kim
    Science Editing.2021; 8(2): 145.     CrossRef
Case Study
Compliance of education journals in Vietnam with the minimum criteria to be indexed in the ASEAN Citation Index and Scopus
Trung Tran, Loc Thi My Nguyen, Thanh Thi Nghiem, Hien Thi Thu Le, Cuong Huu Nguyen, Thuy Phuong La, Trung Tien Nguyen, Hang Thi-Thu Nguyen
Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):142-147.   Published online August 19, 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.175
  • 7,462 View
  • 125 Download
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
This study aimed at elucidating the present situation of scholarly journals published in Vietnam according to the minimum criteria to be indexed in the ASEAN Citation Index (ACI) and Scopus, with the goal of suggesting development strategies for scholarly journals in Vietnam. From the 387 journals accredited by the Vietnamese State Council for Professorship, 13 education journals were arbitrarily selected, and their compliance with the five minimum criteria for the ACI (peer review, timeliness, abstracts in English, references in Roman script, and a website in English) and the six minimum criteria for Scopus (peer review, timeline, abstracts in English, references in Roman characters, Electronic International Standard Serial Number [ISSN], and publication ethics) were assessed. Two of the 13 journals were eligible to be indexed in the ACI, while none fulfilled the minimum criteria to be indexed in Scopus. An urgent task for the editors of those journals is to establish an informative journal homepage in English that provides basic information on the journal. Then, an Electronic ISSN can be obtained from the ISSN International Center. Furthermore, the following steps are suggested for journal promotion: establishment of appropriate editorial policies and publication ethics procedures, improvement of research integrity, enhancement of the journals’ reputation in the international scientific community, and improvement of the online publishing system by adopting a journal manuscript management system. To achieve those goals, financial support from the Vietnamese government will be invaluable.
Original Articles
Comparative analysis of manuscript management systems for scholarly publishing
Soon Kim, Hyungwook Choi, Nayon Kim, EunKyung Chung, Jae Yun Lee
Sci Ed. 2018;5(2):124-134.   Published online August 20, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.137
  • 20,736 View
  • 359 Download
  • 7 Web of Science
  • 6 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
To improve scholarly communications with scientists throughout the world, an international-level manuscript management system is indispensable. We analyzed the manuscript management systems currently in use in Korea and suggested ways to improve these domestic systems through benchmarking with representative overseas systems. Drawing information from the manufacturer’s documentation, we compared the functionalities of the major manuscript management systems available in Korea to international systems. Based on this analysis, we identified the essential elements necessary to meet international standards. The representative international systems provide an intuitive interface and an efficient communication channel for authors, editors, and reviewers, enabling them to save time. The two domestic paid systems are almost at the international level; however, the free systems developed in Korea need to be upgraded. In particular, more advanced visualization tools, more efficient tools for communication between stakeholders, and convenient linking to external content are needed. Studies of these manuscript management systems, which are essential for the internationalization of domestic journals, can be utilized as primary materials to improve the level of Korean academic journals in response to the rapid changes in modern scholarly communication.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: A summary and review
    Kayvan Kousha, Mike Thelwall
    Learned Publishing.2024; 37(1): 4.     CrossRef
  • Should publishers use online submission systems to harvest authors’ responses to diversity, equity and inclusion?
    J. A. Teixeira da Silva
    Science Editor and Publisher.2023; 7(2): 210.     CrossRef
  • An Exploratory Study into Professional Scholarly Journals Publishing Software Adoption in Lithuania
    Vincas Grigas, Arūnas Gudinavičius, Tomas Petreikis, Andrius Šuminas
    Information & Media.2023; 96: 179.     CrossRef
  • A Blockchain-Based Editorial Management System
    Eman-Yaser Daraghmi, Mamoun Abu Helou, Yousef-Awwad Daraghmi, omar cheikhrouhou
    Security and Communication Networks.2021; 2021: 1.     CrossRef
  • Artificial intelligence-assisted tools for redefining the communication landscape of the scholarly world
    Habeeb Ibrahim Abdul Razack, Sam T. Mathew, Fathinul Fikri Ahmad Saad, Saleh A. Alqahtani
    Science Editing.2021; 8(2): 134.     CrossRef
  • The “invisible hand” of peer review: The implications of author-referee networks on peer review in a scholarly journal
    Pierpaolo Dondio, Niccolò Casnici, Francisco Grimaldo, Nigel Gilbert, Flaminio Squazzoni
    Journal of Informetrics.2019; 13(2): 708.     CrossRef
Authors’ perspectives on academic publishing: initial observations from a large-scale global survey
Basil D’Souza, Sneha Kulkarni, Clarinda Cerejo
Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):39-43.   Published online February 19, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.116
  • 12,833 View
  • 246 Download
  • 12 Web of Science
  • 7 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
Authors are at the heart of academic publishing, but their voices are underrepresented in discussions about improving the academic publishing system. To understand the viewpoints of authors on various aspects of academic publishing and the challenges they face, we developed a large-scale survey entitled “Author perspectives on the academic publishing process” and made it available in December 2016. The survey has received 8,795 responses; this paper is based on the interim results drawn from 5,293 survey responses, and presents some interesting and thought-provoking trends that were observed in the authors’ responses, such as their interpretation of plagiarism and decisive factors in journal selection, as well as their thoughts on what needs to change in the publishing system for it to be more author-friendly. Some of the most important findings of the survey were: (1) the majority of the authors found manuscript preparation to be the most challenging task in the publication process, (2) the impact factor of a journal was reported to be the most important consideration for journal selection, (3) most authors found journal guidelines to be incomplete, (4) major gaps existed in author-journal communication, and (5) although awareness of ethics was high, awareness of good publication practice standards was low. Moreover, more than half of the participants indicated that among areas for improvement in the publishing system, they would like to see changes in the time it takes to publish a paper, the peer review process, and the fairness and objectivity of the publication process. These findings indicate the necessity of making the journal publication process more author-centered and smoothing the way for authors to get published.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Factors affecting authors' manuscript submission behaviour: A systematic review
    Xiaoting Xu, Juan Xie, Jianjun Sun, Ying Cheng
    Learned Publishing.2023; 36(2): 285.     CrossRef
  • Authors' choice between parent and mirror journals of Elsevier
    Sumiko Asai
    Learned Publishing.2023; 36(2): 299.     CrossRef
  • Video or perish? An analysis of video abstract author guidelines
    Jianxin Liu
    Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.2022; 54(2): 230.     CrossRef
  • Why consistent, clear, and uniform instructions for authors are required
    Jean Iwaz
    Science Editing.2022; 9(2): 142.     CrossRef
  • Characteristics of high research performance authors in the field of library and information science and those of their articles
    Yu-Wei Chang
    Scientometrics.2021; 126(4): 3373.     CrossRef
  • Impact of a new institutional medical journal on professional identity development and academic cultural change: A qualitative study
    Victoria Hayes, Emma Williams, Kathleen M. Fairfield, Carolyne Falank, Dina McKelvy, Robert Bing‐You
    Learned Publishing.2021; 34(4): 602.     CrossRef
  • Are articles in library and information science (LIS) journals primarily contributed to by LIS authors?
    Yu-Wei Chang
    Scientometrics.2019; 121(1): 81.     CrossRef
Training Material
Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist
Irene Hames
Sci Ed. 2016;3(1):36-42.   Published online February 19, 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.61
  • 27,034 View
  • 457 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 3 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
This is a republication of Appendix 1, The Golden Rules and the Peer-Review Good Practice Checklist, from the author’s book, Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: guidelines for good practice, published in 2007 by Wiley-Blackwell in association with ALPSP (the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers), with the permission of the author and publisher (ISBN: 978-1-4051-3159-9, http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/ productCd-1405131594.html).

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Ten Tips for Performing Your First Peer Review: The Next Step for the Aspiring Academic Plastic Surgeon
    Martin Frendø, Andreas Frithioff, Steven Arild Wuyts Andersen
    Archives of Plastic Surgery.2022; 49(04): 538.     CrossRef
  • Do’s and Don’ts for a Good Reviewer of Scientific Papers: A Beginner’s Brief Decalogue
    Miltos K. Lazarides, George S. Georgiadis, Nikolaos Papanas
    The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds.2020; 19(3): 227.     CrossRef
  • Writing highly effective reviews of a scientific manuscript
    Garry J. Scrimgeour, Shelley D. Pruss
    Freshwater Science.2016; 35(4): 1076.     CrossRef
Review
Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century
Irene Hames
Sci Ed. 2014;1(1):4-8.   Published online February 13, 2014
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.4
  • 21,715 View
  • 157 Download
  • 4 Web of Science
  • 7 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF

Vigorous debate currently surrounds peer review, and polarized views are often expressed. Despite criticisms about the process, studies have found that it is still valued by researchers, with rigorous peer review being rated by authors as the most important service they expect to receive when paying to have their papers published open access. The expectations of peer review and what it can achieve need, however, to be realistic. Peer review is also only as good and effective as the people managing the process, and the large variation in standards that exists is one of the reasons some of the research and related communities have become critical of and disillusioned with the traditional model of peer review. The role of the editor is critical. All editors must act as proper editors, not just moving manuscripts automatically through the various stages, but making critical judgements throughout the process to reach sound and unbiased editorial decisions. New models and innovations in peer review are appearing. Many issues, however, remain the same: rigorous procedures and high ethical standards should be in place, those responsible for making decisions and managing the process need to be trained to equip them for their roles and responsibilities, and systems need to be adapted to deal with new challenges such as the increasing amounts of data being generated and needing to be taken into account when assessing the validity and soundness of work and the conclusions being drawn.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • The challenge of recruiting peer reviewers from one medical journal’s perspective
    Christopher J. Peterson, Cynthia Orticio, Kenneth Nugent
    Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings.2022; 35(3): 394.     CrossRef
  • Effective Peer Review: Who, Where, or What?
    Russell P. Hall
    JID Innovations.2022; 2(6): 100162.     CrossRef
  • JID Innovations and Peer Review
    Russell P. Hall
    JID Innovations.2021; 1(3): 100056.     CrossRef
  • Enhancing reproducibility: Failures from Reproducibility Initiatives underline core challenges
    Kevin Mullane, Michael Williams
    Biochemical Pharmacology.2017; 138: 7.     CrossRef
  • Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers
    Tony Ross-Hellauer, Arvid Deppe, Birgit Schmidt, Jelte M. Wicherts
    PLOS ONE.2017; 12(12): e0189311.     CrossRef
  • Editing and publishing scholarly journals in the internet age
    Kihong Kim
    Science Editing.2014; 1(1): 2.     CrossRef
  • The big picture: scholarly publishing trends 2014
    Pippa Smart
    Science Editing.2014; 1(2): 52.     CrossRef

Science Editing : Science Editing