oalib
Search Results: 1 - 10 of 100 matches for " "
All listed articles are free for downloading (OA Articles)
Page 1 /100
Display every page Item
Acknowledgements to our peer reviewers of the first half of 2012  [cached]
Miguel Araujo Alonso
Medwave , 2012,
Abstract:
Thanking our peer reviewers  [cached]
Storey Alan
Molecular Cancer , 2013, DOI: 10.1186/1476-4598-12-10
Abstract: Contributing reviewers As 2013 commences I would like to take a moment to reflect and recognize the peer reviewers that made the previous year possible. Listed below are those people who reviewed for Molecular Cancer last year. All are generous individuals who donated their time to assessing and improving our authors’ submissions. Your combined efforts have been invaluable to the editorial staff in maintaining the continued success of the journal in the Open Access forum. The editors of Molecular Cancer would like to thank all the reviewers who contributed to the journal in Volume 11 (2012) by participating in the review process - taking time out of your busy schedules and even to volunteer - without your critical insights, hard work and support for the journal we wouldn’t be able to do what we do.
Peer reviewers 2009-2011  [cached]
Anna Pasolini
Altre Modernità , 2011,
Abstract: Peer reviewers 2009-2011
Thank you to Virology Journal’s peer reviewers in 2012  [cached]
Wang Linfa
Virology Journal , 2013, DOI: 10.1186/1743-422x-10-44
Abstract: Contributing reviewers The editors of Virology Journal would like to thank all our reviewers who have contributed to the journal in Volume 9 (2012). The success of any scientific journal depends on an effective and strict peer review process and Virology Journal could not operate without your contribution. We look forward to your continuous support to this journal either as an invited reviewer or a contributing author in the years to come.
An Algorithm to Determine Peer-Reviewers  [PDF]
Marko A. Rodriguez,Johan Bollen
Computer Science , 2006, DOI: 10.1145/1458082.1458127
Abstract: The peer-review process is the most widely accepted certification mechanism for officially accepting the written results of researchers within the scientific community. An essential component of peer-review is the identification of competent referees to review a submitted manuscript. This article presents an algorithm to automatically determine the most appropriate reviewers for a manuscript by way of a co-authorship network data structure and a relative-rank particle-swarm algorithm. This approach is novel in that it is not limited to a pre-selected set of referees, is computationally efficient, requires no human-intervention, and, in some instances, can automatically identify conflict of interest situations. A useful application of this algorithm would be to open commentary peer-review systems because it provides a weighting for each referee with respects to their expertise in the domain of a manuscript. The algorithm is validated using referee bid data from the 2005 Joint Conference on Digital Libraries.
The tragedy of the common reviewers: the peer review process
Albuquerque, Ulysses Paulino de;
Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia , 2011, DOI: 10.1590/S0102-695X2011005000036
Abstract: the peer review process is the dominant system adopted in science to evaluate the quality of articles submitted for publication. various social players are involved in this process, including authors, editors and reviewers. much has been discussed about the need to improve the scientific quality of what is published. the main focus of these discussions has been the work of the authors. however, the editors and reviewers also fulfill an important role. in this opinion article, we discuss some proposals to improve the peer review system, emphasizing the role of reviewers and editors.
The tragedy of the common reviewers: the peer review process  [cached]
Ulysses Paulino de Albuquerque
Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia , 2011,
Abstract: The peer review process is the dominant system adopted in science to evaluate the quality of articles submitted for publication. Various social players are involved in this process, including authors, editors and reviewers. Much has been discussed about the need to improve the scientific quality of what is published. The main focus of these discussions has been the work of the authors. However, the editors and reviewers also fulfill an important role. In this opinion article, we discuss some proposals to improve the peer review system, emphasizing the role of reviewers and editors.
Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals  [PDF]
Allison Hirst, Douglas G. Altman
PLOS ONE , 2012, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035621
Abstract: Background Pre-publication peer review of manuscripts should enhance the value of research publications to readers who may wish to utilize findings in clinical care or health policy-making. Much published research across all medical specialties is not useful, may be misleading, wasteful and even harmful. Reporting guidelines are tools that in addition to helping authors prepare better manuscripts may help peer reviewers in assessing them. We examined journals' instructions to peer reviewers to see if and how reviewers are encouraged to use them. Methods We surveyed websites of 116 journals from the McMaster list. Main outcomes were 1) identification of online instructions to peer reviewers and 2) presence or absence of key domains within instructions: on journal logistics, reviewer etiquette and addressing manuscript content (11 domains). Findings Only 41/116 journals (35%) provided online instructions. All 41 guided reviewers about the logistics of their review processes, 38 (93%) outlined standards of behaviour expected and 39 (95%) contained instruction about evaluating the manuscript content. There was great variation in explicit instruction for reviewers about how to evaluate manuscript content. Almost half of the online instructions 19/41 (46%) mentioned reporting guidelines usually as general statements suggesting they may be useful or asking whether authors had followed them rather than clear instructions about how to use them. All 19 named CONSORT for reporting randomized trials but there was little mention of CONSORT extensions. PRISMA, QUOROM (forerunner of PRISMA), STARD, STROBE and MOOSE were mentioned by several journals. No other reporting guideline was mentioned by more than two journals. Conclusions Although almost half of instructions mentioned reporting guidelines, their value in improving research publications is not being fully realised. Journals have a responsibility to support peer reviewers. We make several recommendations including wider reference to the EQUATOR Network online library (www.equator-network.org/).
The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality  [PDF]
Michael L Callaham ,John Tercier
PLOS Medicine , 2007, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040
Abstract: Background Peer review is considered crucial to the selection and publication of quality science, but very little is known about the previous experiences and training that might identify high-quality peer reviewers. The reviewer selection processes of most journals, and thus the qualifications of their reviewers, are ill defined. More objective selection of peer reviewers might improve the journal peer review process and thus the quality of published science. Methods and Findings 306 experienced reviewers (71% of all those associated with a specialty journal) completed a survey of past training and experiences postulated to improve peer review skills. Reviewers performed 2,856 reviews of 1,484 separate manuscripts during a four-year study period, all prospectively rated on a standardized quality scale by editors. Multivariable analysis revealed that most variables, including academic rank, formal training in critical appraisal or statistics, or status as principal investigator of a grant, failed to predict performance of higher-quality reviews. The only significant predictors of quality were working in a university-operated hospital versus other teaching environment and relative youth (under ten years of experience after finishing training). Being on an editorial board and doing formal grant (study section) review were each predictors for only one of our two comparisons. However, the predictive power of all variables was weak. Conclusions Our study confirms that there are no easily identifiable types of formal training or experience that predict reviewer performance. Skill in scientific peer review may be as ill defined and hard to impart as is “common sense.” Without a better understanding of those skills, it seems unlikely journals and editors will be successful in systematically improving their selection of reviewers. This inability to predict performance makes it imperative that all but the smallest journals implement routine review ratings systems to routinely monitor the quality of their reviews (and thus the quality of the science they publish).
OBJN 2005 Thanks to Peer Reviewers and Authors  [cached]
Isabel C.F. da Cruz
Online Brazilian Journal of Nursing , 2005,
Abstract: The editors and staff at OBJN would like to thank the OBJN Reviewers for their competent service during the year 2005 and the authors who submitted manuscripts for consideration for publication in OBJN.
Page 1 /100
Display every page Item


Home
Copyright © 2008-2017 Open Access Library. All rights reserved.