Peer Review in Collective Context of China

Peer review, which incorporates the U.S. ideology of individualism, is regarded as an effective tool in writing classes for improving students' writing proficiency and fostering their critical writing/revising skills (Ramanathan& Atkinson, 1999). Collectivism seems to be an impediment in peer reviewing according to Ramanathan&Atkinson (1999); however, it may not be the case due to the different contexts or cultural beliefs that students carry with.

Engaging in scientific peer review:tips for young reviewers

Are you a student at a higher institution or a graduate who has published his/her first paper in the Journal of Forestry Research or another legitimate scientific journal?If yes,this paper is written specifically for you since you may soon start receiving invitations to act as a referee.If you are an early career reviewer,you may still find this paper enlightening.Based on his experience,a senior editor summarizes some critical information that,in his view,you may need to know.He provides nine main suggestions to have on your radar,and discusses what you should do or not do as a peer reviewer.

Thank you to our peer reviewers

The Editorial Office of Water Science and Engineering would like to express their sincere appreciation to the following peer reviewers for their selfless devotion of time and energy to the journal in the year 2012：

Acknowledgement to peer reviewers in 2011

Neural Regeneration Research （NRR, ISSN 1675-5374, CN11-5422/R）, an English language journal published in China every ten days, is dedicated to presenting peer-reviewed, evidenced based scholarly research in neuroregeneration, including neural stem cells, nerve tissue engineering, gene therapy, and traditional Chinese medicine.

Open Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: A Web Mining Study of Peer J Authors and Reviewers

Purpose: To understand how authors and reviewers are accepting and embracing Open Peer Review(OPR), one of the newest innovations in the Open Science movement.Design/methodology/approach: This research collected and analyzed data from the Open Access journal Peer J over its first three years(2013–2016). Web data were scraped, cleaned, and structured using several Web tools and programs. The structured data were imported into a relational database. Data analyses were conducted using analytical tools as well as programs developed by the researchers.Findings: Peer J, which supports optional OPR, has a broad international representation of authors and referees. Approximately 73.89% of articles provide full review histories. Of the articles with published review histories, 17.61% had identities of all reviewers and 52.57% had at least one signed reviewer. In total, 43.23% of all reviews were signed. The observed proportions of signed reviews have been relatively stable over the period since the Journal’s inception.Research limitations: This research is constrained by the availability of the peer review history data. Some peer reviews were not available when the authors opted out of publishing their review histories. The anonymity of reviewers made it impossible to give an accurate count of reviewers who contributed to the review process. Practical implications: These findings shed light on the current characteristics of OPR. Given the policy that authors are encouraged to make their articles’ review history public and referees are encouraged to sign their review reports, the three years of Peer J review data demonstrate that there is still some reluctance by authors to make their reviews public and by reviewers to identify themselves. Originality/value: This is the first study to closely examine Peer J as an example of an OPR model journal. As Open Science moves further towards open research, OPR is a final and critical component. Research in this area must identify the best policies and paths towards a transparent and open peer review process for scientific communication.

Modeling and analyzing of nuclear power peer review on enterprise operational efficiency

Based on the practice and analysis of peer review in nuclear power plants, the models on the Pareto improvement of peer review, governance entropy decrease of peer review are set up and discussed. The result shows that the peer review of nuclear power is actually a process of Pareto improvement, and of governance entropy decrease. It’s a process of improvement of the enterprise operational efficiency accordingly.

Thank you to our peer reviewers

The Editorial Office of Water Science and Engineering would like to express their sincere appreciation to the following peer reviewers for their devotion of time and energy to the journal in the year 2016.

Thank you to our peer reviewers

The Editorial Office of Water Science and Engineering would like to express their sincere appreciation to the following peer reviewers for their devotion of time and energy to the journal in the year 2015:

Thank you to peer reviewers

The editorial Office of Water Science and Engineering would like to give their special thanks to the following peer reviewers for their selfless devotion of time and energy to the peer review processes from 2008 to 2011：

Diffusion tensor imaging in the courtroom:Distinction between scientific specificity and legally admissible evidence

Interest and uptake of science and medicine peer-reviewed literature by readers outside of a paper’s topical subject,field or even discipline is ever-expanding.While the application of knowledge from one field or discipline to others can stimulate innovative solutions to problems facing modern society,it is also fraught with danger for misuse.In the practice of law in the United States,academic papers are submitted to the courts as evidence in personal injury litigation from both the plaintiff(complainant)and defendant.Such transcendence of an academic publication over disciplinary boundaries is immediately met with the challenge of application by a group that inherently lacks in-depth knowledge on the scientific method,the practice of evidence-based medicine,or the publication process as a structured and internationally synthesized process involving peer review and guided by ethical standards and norms.A modern-day example of this is the ongoing conflict between the sensitivity of diffusion tensor imaging(DTI)and the legal standards for admissibility of evidence in litigation cases of mild traumatic brain injury(mTBI).In this review,we amalgamate the peer-reviewed research on DTI in mTBI with the court’s rationale underlying decisions to admit or exclude evidence of DTI abnormalities to support claims of brain injury.We found that the papers which are critical of the use of DTI in the courtroom reflect a primary misunderstanding about how diagnostic biomarkers differ legally from relevant and admissible evidence.The clinical use of DTI to identify white matter abnormalities in the brain at the chronic stage is a valid methodology both clinically as well as forensically,contributes data that may or may not corroborate the existence of white matter damage,and should be admitted into evidence in personal injury trials if supported by a clinician.We also delve into an aspect of science publication and peer review that can be manipulated by scientists and clinicians to publish an opinion piece and misrepresent it as an unbiased,evidencebased,systematic research article in court cases,the decisions of which establish precedence for future cases and have implications on future legislation that will impact the lives of every citizen and erode the integrity of science and medicine practitioners.

Environmental impact assessments should include rigorous scientific peer review

Twenty USA states or jurisdictions and 125 nations have modeled national environmental policies after the National Environmental Policy Act.That act mandates that federal agencies initiate environmental impact statements(EISs)when substantive environmental or human health consequences are likely because of an agency action related to proposed development projects.The science used to inform the EIS process,however,does not require independent scientific peer review(ISPR)in the USA or most other nations.But ISPR is needed for governments to accurately inform the EIS decision-making and public reporting processes.Instead,science is routinely manipulated during EIS reviews to generate expedient project outcomes with substantially negative ecological,political,and long-term economic consequences.We provide four examples of EISs that lack ISPR,as well as four examples where reviews by independent scientists were helpful to improve agency decisions.We also recommend that independent scientists(no affiliation with the project proponents or agencies overseeing projects)be used to help assess potential environmental and socio-economic impacts,as well as offer appropriate risk assessments,study designs,and monitoring timeframes.We conclude that nations should convene formal reviews using independent scientists as a form of peer review in the EIS process.

Advances in Journal of Geriatric Cardiology over the course of a decade

The Journal of Geriatric Cardiology(JGC,ISSN 1671-5141/CN 11-5329/R)is a monthly,open-access,international,and peer-reviewed journal sponsored and published by the Institute of Geriatric Cardiology affiliated with Chinese PLA General Hospital.It was created in 2004 by Prof.Shi-Wen WANG,and as the current editor-in-chief,Prof.Yun-Dai CHEN has been involved in JGC for eight years and has achieved impressive advancements.

Build infrastructure in publishing scientific journals to benefit medical scientists

There is urgent need for medical journals to optimize their publishing processes and strategies to satisfy the huge need for medical scientists to publish their articles,and then obtain better prestige and impact in scientific and research commtmity.These strategies include optimizing the process of peer-review,utilizing open-access publishing models actively,finding ways of saving costs and getting revenue,smartly dealing with research fraud or misconduct,maintaining sound relationship with pharmaceutical companies,and managing to provide relevant and useful information for clinical practitioners and researchers.Scientists,publishers,societies and organizations need to work together to publish internationally renowned medical journals.

Peer reviewing of screening mammography in Taiwan： its reliability and the improvement

Background Early detection with screening mammography can potentially reduce breast cancer mortality rates. To achieve an efficient screening, a peer review system provides a compensatory double-check reviewing, will hopefully to prevent the omission of detectable lesions and reduce unnecessary recall. Methods In 2009, 4643 initial mammographic screenings reported by 74 screening radiologists had negative results with a recall rate of less than 5%. In the same year, 2538 initial positives screened by 18 screening radiologists had a recall rate higher than 15%. Those 7181 randomized screenings were evenly distributed for reassessment by 39 reviewing radiologists. The disagreement of assessments between the reviewers and screening radiologists was recorded. The differential rate was defined as the number of the disagreements divided by the number of audited films reviewed by a screening radiologist. The equality of the differential rates for each screening radiologists with negative and positive assessments was compared by a Chi-square test. The performance of the 39 auditors was measured by the Kendalrs tau statistic. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results The mean differential rate for screening radiologists of negative assessments was 6.7% （P=0.588）, while 35.0% for positive assessments were significant （P 〈0.001）. The result indicated that most of the initial negative assessments reported by the screening radiologists were generally accepted by the reviewers but not the positive assessments. With respect to the 39 reviewers, there was no significant evidence for the association of the difference rates between negative and positive assessments. Nine reviewers were found to have their differential rate for negative and positive assessments larger than the average of the population. Eleven reviewers were found to have their differential rates smaller than the average for both. Thirteen reviewers had their differential rates smaller than the average for negative assessments but larger than the average for positive assessments. The opposite condition was found for six reviewers. The Kendall＇s tau statistic was 0.038 （P=0.735）. Conclusions Reviewers usually agreed with the opinion of the initial screening doctors who reported negative findings. Therefore, a 5% recall rate as the lower range of reviewing negatives may be still too high. The recall rate of more than 15% was significantly related to improper interpretation, especially when the differential rate is 25% or higher, a warning to the underperforming screening radiologist is recommended. An ideal reviewer should interpret films independently. Reviewers with tendencies to be followers or contrarians should not be enrolled in the reviewing system.

Integrity of the editing and publishing process is the basis for improving an academic journal’s Impact Factor

BACKGROUND Journal Impact Factor™(JIF)is often used to evaluate the relative reputation and quality of academic journals in their respective fields,and can greatly influence the quality and scope of subsequent manuscript submissions.Therefore,many if not all academic journals are interested in increasing their JIF,to improve their academic impact.AIM To determine the importance of the integrity of the editorial and publication process in improving the academic influence of academic journals and the JIF of academic journals.METHODS In this paper,we describe our statistical analysis of bibliometric factors-including the 2021 JIFs released in the Journal Citation Report™2022,discipline rankings,received and published articles in 2019-2021,and webpage visits and downloads-for seven journals published by Baishideng Publishing Group(Baishideng)and indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded™;ultimately,we introduce and discuss the editing and publishing processes of Baishideng’s journals in their entirety,as they form the basis for our objective of safeguarding and bolstering integrity in academic publication.RESULTS For the seven journals assessed,their 2021 JIFs were basically unchanged from 2020,with the current metric ranging from 5.374 for World Journal of Gastroenterology(WJG)to 1.534 for World Journal of Clinical Cases(WJCC).Further assessments of the journals’bibliometrics from 2019 to 2020,showed that World Journal of Stem Cells has the highest self-citation rate(1.43%)and World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery has the lowest(0.21%).Additionally,the total 3012 articles published during this period were cited by more than 20000 articles in approximately 8000 academic journals.Of note,the 1102 articles published in WJG were cited by articles in 3059 journals,among which 171 journals have a JIF of>10,including internationally renowned academic journals such as CA-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians(2021 JIF 286.130,record count:1),Lancet(2021 JIF 202.731,record count:4),Nature Reviews Immunology(2021 JIF 108.555,record count:2),Nature Reviews Gastroenterology&Hepatology(2021 JIF 73.082,record count:9),Lancet Gastroenterology&Hepatology(2021 JIF 45.042,record count:8),Gastroenterology(2021 JIF 33.883,record count:19),and Gut(2021 JIF 31.793,record count:21).This suggests that Baishideng’s journals have been widely recognized for their academic quality.In the Reference Citation Analysis(RCA)database,all seven Baishidengpublished journals obtained a 2022 Journal Article Influence Index(JAII).For example,WJG has a 2022 JAII of 22.048,ranking 18th out of 102 journals in the field of gastroenterology&hepatology in the RCA,with 469909 total citations(6/102)and 21313 total articles(5/102).The numbers of manuscripts received and published in 2021 were both higher than those in 2019-2020.For example,WJCC received a total of 3650 manuscripts in 2021,which is 91.1%higher than those in 2019-2020(average:1910 papers/year).In 2021,WJCC published 1296 articles,representing an increase of 105.1%compared to those in 2019-2020(average:632 articles/year).The numbers of webpage visits and downloads received by the seven journals have increased year by year.For example,the number of total visits received by WJG in 2019-2021 was 1974052 in 2019,2317835 in 2020(increased by 17.4%compared with that in 2019),and 2652555 in 2021(increased by 4.4%compared with that in 2020).The visitors were from more than 220 countries and regions worldwide,such as the United States,China,and the United Kingdom.Open access(OA)plays a vital role in improving the quality,efficiency,transparency,and integrity of academic journal publishing.From 2019 to 2021,a total of 5543 OA articles were published in the seven journals,of which 2083(37.6%)were invited and published free-of-charge.During the same period,1683 articles were published in WJG,and the authors were from more than 70 countries and regions.For the total 5543 articles published in the seven journals from 2019 to 2021,3903 article quality tracking reports were received after the online publication of these articles.The quality of the articles was further evaluated through the Baishideng’s article quality and author evaluation tracking system,with 4655 articles(84.0%)having received author evaluation and feedback,which contributes to tracking metrics for authors’satisfaction with the collective publication processes.From March 25,2021 to June 28,2022,the seven journals received a total of 424 reader evaluations and 229 letters from readers;this subsequent reader engagement demonstrates that the popularity of the published articles and the volume of their readership audience were improved through the reader evaluation system.CONCLUSION Ultimately,the findings from our bibliometric assessments indicate that establishing,promoting and actively practicing processes that safeguard and bolster the integrity of the editing and publication process also help to improve the academic influence of academic journals,which itself is the cornerstone for improving JIF.

Six statistical issues in scientific writing that might lead to rejection of a manuscript

Communication plays an important role in advancing scientific fields and disciplines,defining what knowledge is made accessible to the public,and guiding policymaking and regulation of public authorities for the benefit of the environment and society.Hence,what is finally published is of great importance for scientific advancement,social development,environmental and public health,and economic agendas.In recognition of these,the goal of a researcher is to communicate research findings to the scientific community and ultimately,to the public.However,this may often be challenging due to competition for publication space,although to a lesser extent nowadays that online-only publications have expanded.This editorial introduces six statistics-related issues in scientific writing that you should be aware of.These issues can lead to desk rejection or rejection following a peer review,but even if papers containing such issues are published,they may prevent cumulative science,undermine scientific advancement,mislead the public,and result in incorrect or weak policies and regulations.Therefore,addressing these issues from the early research stages can facilitate scientific advancement and prevent rejection of your paper.

All journals should include a correspondence section

Letters to the editor can provide useful scientific information and evaluation of published work as well as acting as an additional level of peer review.Furthermore,letters are good reading material,especially if they involve a debate between authors.Finally,letters are relatively short.Therefore,inexperienced career researchers can use such an opportunity to practice putting together a cogent argument.However,it is far from an ideal situation if letters are the only(or main)type of article on which to base an academic career.