The article analyses several key issues which restrict the effectiveness of fund project peer review work. It analyses the evaluating theory and matter-element theory to access the expert anti-evaluation model, and al...The article analyses several key issues which restrict the effectiveness of fund project peer review work. It analyses the evaluating theory and matter-element theory to access the expert anti-evaluation model, and also studies the expert anti-evaluation index system to support the anti-evaluation method. The practical basis is the true score data of the experts which is collected from the actual anti-evaluation in Liaoning province science and technology fund project peer review system. With the practical experience of the actual project, we prove that the expert index system anti-evaluation model and expert anti-evaluation method can improve the fund project peer review work and play a positive role for the peer review work and also make the review work more scientific and more rational.展开更多
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 ski...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.展开更多
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 ...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.展开更多
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 tha...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.展开更多
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：
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 neurore...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.展开更多
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:
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 a...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.展开更多
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.
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 2...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：展开更多
Ethical standards in the context of scientific publications are increasingly gaining attention. A narrative review of the literature concerning publication ethics wasconducted as found in Pub Med, Google Scholar, rele...Ethical standards in the context of scientific publications are increasingly gaining attention. A narrative review of the literature concerning publication ethics wasconducted as found in Pub Med, Google Scholar, relevant news articles, position papers, websites and other sources. The Committee on Publication Ethics has produced guidelines and schedules for the handling of problem situations that have been adopted by professional journals and publishers worldwide as guidelines to authors. The defined requirements go beyond the disclosure of conflicts of interest or the prior registration of clinical trials. Recommendations to authors, editors and publishers of journals and research institutions were formulated with regard to issues of authorship, double publications, plagiarism, and conflicts of interest, with special attention being paid to unethical research behavior and data falsification. This narrative review focusses on ethical publishing in intensive care medicine. As scientific misconduct with data falsification damage patients and society, especially if fraudulent studies are considered important or favor certain therapies and downplay their side effects, it is important to ensure that only studies are published that have been carried out with highest integrity according to predefined criteria. For that also the peer review process has to be conducted in accordance with the highest possible scientific standards and making use of available modern information technology. The review provides the current state of recommendations that are considered to be most relevant particularly in the field of intensive care medicine.展开更多
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 dis...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.展开更多
文摘The article analyses several key issues which restrict the effectiveness of fund project peer review work. It analyses the evaluating theory and matter-element theory to access the expert anti-evaluation model, and also studies the expert anti-evaluation index system to support the anti-evaluation method. The practical basis is the true score data of the experts which is collected from the actual anti-evaluation in Liaoning province science and technology fund project peer review system. With the practical experience of the actual project, we prove that the expert index system anti-evaluation model and expert anti-evaluation method can improve the fund project peer review work and play a positive role for the peer review work and also make the review work more scientific and more rational.
文摘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.
基金The author acknowledges support from The Startup Foundation for Introducing Talent of Nanjing University of Information Science&Technology(NUIST),Nanjing,China(Grant No.003080).
文摘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.
文摘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.
文摘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：
文摘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.
文摘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:
文摘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.
文摘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.
文摘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：
文摘Ethical standards in the context of scientific publications are increasingly gaining attention. A narrative review of the literature concerning publication ethics wasconducted as found in Pub Med, Google Scholar, relevant news articles, position papers, websites and other sources. The Committee on Publication Ethics has produced guidelines and schedules for the handling of problem situations that have been adopted by professional journals and publishers worldwide as guidelines to authors. The defined requirements go beyond the disclosure of conflicts of interest or the prior registration of clinical trials. Recommendations to authors, editors and publishers of journals and research institutions were formulated with regard to issues of authorship, double publications, plagiarism, and conflicts of interest, with special attention being paid to unethical research behavior and data falsification. This narrative review focusses on ethical publishing in intensive care medicine. As scientific misconduct with data falsification damage patients and society, especially if fraudulent studies are considered important or favor certain therapies and downplay their side effects, it is important to ensure that only studies are published that have been carried out with highest integrity according to predefined criteria. For that also the peer review process has to be conducted in accordance with the highest possible scientific standards and making use of available modern information technology. The review provides the current state of recommendations that are considered to be most relevant particularly in the field of intensive care medicine.
文摘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.
