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
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 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 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
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
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 express their sincere appreciation to the following peer reviewers for their devotion of time and energy to the journal in the year 2015:
Published by The WJG Press and Elsevier Inc．,PO Box 23451 Beijing 100023,China Fax:+86-(0)10-85381893 E-mail:wjg@wjgnet．com http://www．wjgnet．com The World Journal of Gastroenterology Editorial Board consists of 5...Published by The WJG Press and Elsevier Inc．,PO Box 23451 Beijing 100023,China Fax:+86-(0)10-85381893 E-mail:wjg@wjgnet．com http://www．wjgnet．com The World Journal of Gastroenterology Editorial Board consists of 519 members,representing a team of worldwide experts in gastroenterology and hepatology．They are from 51 countries,including Albania(1),Algeria(1),Argentina(1),Australia(8), Austria(5),Belarus(1),Belgium(6),Brazil(1),Bulgaria(1),Canada(7),China(50),Costa Rica(1),Croatia(1),Denmark(6), Egypt(1),Finland(1),France(18),Germany(35),Greece(2),Hungary(2),Iceland(1),India(5),Iran(1),Ireland(1),Israel(2),Italy(41),Japan(132),Lithuania(1),Macedonia(1),Malaysia(3),Monaco(1),Netherlands(13),Norway(2),Pakistan(1),Philippines(1),Poland(2),Portugal(1),Russia(3),Singapore(2),Slovakia(1),South Africa(2),South Korea(6),Spain(20), Sri Lanka(1),Swaziland(1),Sweden(4),Switzerland(4),Turkey(3),United Kingdom(20),United States(90),Yugoslavia(1)． HONORARY EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Ke-Ji Chen,Professor Xiyuan Hospital,Chinese Tranditional Medicine University,Beijing 100091,China. kjchen@public．bta．net．展开更多
7 studies on the effectiveness of peer and teacher feedback have been critically reviewed in this paper,some problems being perceived either in the research design or their research findings.Based on the detected prob...7 studies on the effectiveness of peer and teacher feedback have been critically reviewed in this paper,some problems being perceived either in the research design or their research findings.Based on the detected problems,I put forward some suggestions for the future study and then draw some pedagogical implications.展开更多
Since the result of effect comparison is important for teacher's decision making,roles teacher feedback and peer review play respectively and collaboratively in tertiary-level EFL writing context should be address...Since the result of effect comparison is important for teacher's decision making,roles teacher feedback and peer review play respectively and collaboratively in tertiary-level EFL writing context should be addressed via quantitative study as this paper proposed.Quantitative data should be collected from students'first drafts,second drafts and written comments from teachers and peers.Gains for overall scores between the first and second drafts and correlation between suggestions and gains should be examined.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
The Joint Commission on Accreditation requires hospitals to conduct peer review to retain accreditation.Despite the intended purpose of improving quality medical care,the peer review process has suffered several setba...The Joint Commission on Accreditation requires hospitals to conduct peer review to retain accreditation.Despite the intended purpose of improving quality medical care,the peer review process has suffered several setbacks throughout its tenure.In the 1980s,abuse of peer review for personal economic interest led to a highly publicized multimillion-dollar verdict by the United States Supreme Court against the perpetrating physicians and hospital.The verdict led to decreased physician participation for fear of possible litigation.Believing that peer review was critical to quality medical care,Congress subsequently enacted the Health Care Quality Improvement Act(HCQIA)granting comprehensive legal immunity for peer reviewers to increase participation.While serving its intended goal,HCQIA has also granted peer reviewers significant immunity likely emboldening abuses resulting in Sham Peer Reviews.While legal reform of HCQIA is necessary to reduce sham peer reviews,further measures including the need for standardization of the peer review process alongside external organizational monitoring are critical to improving peer review and reducing the prevalence of sham peer reviews.展开更多
Purpose: The main goal of this paper is to show that international peer review can work in China’s context with satisfactory outcomes. Moreover, this paper also provides a reference for the practice of science and te...Purpose: The main goal of this paper is to show that international peer review can work in China’s context with satisfactory outcomes. Moreover, this paper also provides a reference for the practice of science and technology management.Design/methodology/approach: This paper starts with a discussion of two critical questions about the significance and design of international peer review. A case study of international peer review of CAS Centers for Excellence is further analyzed. Findings: International peer review may provide a solution to address the problem of quantitative oriented research evaluation in China. The case study of research evaluation of CAS Centers for Excellence shows that it is possible and feasible to conduct an international peer review in China’s context. When applying this approach to other scenarios, there are still many issues to consider including individualized design of international peer review combined with practical demands, and further improvement of theories and methods of international peer review. Research limitation: 1) Only the case of international peer review of CAS Centers for Excellence is analyzed;2) A relatively small number of respondents were surveyed in the questionnaire. Practical implications: The work presented in this study can be used as a reference for future studies.Originality/value: Currently, there are no similarly detailed studies exploring the significance and methodology of international peer review in China.展开更多
Peer review is the cornerstone in scientific publication.Although peer review has paramount importance in ensuring the quality of the published literature,it still has a number of shortcomings.The present manuscript p...Peer review is the cornerstone in scientific publication.Although peer review has paramount importance in ensuring the quality of the published literature,it still has a number of shortcomings.The present manuscript proposes a new method to improve the current peer review system by providing an interactive,dynamic platform that allows direct,anonymous interaction between the authors of submitted manuscripts and the reviewers.Such real-time interaction may help eliminate any problems related to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the reviewer’s comments or the authors’response,and would save time while keeping the identity of both parties anonymous.展开更多
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 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 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 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Published by The WJG Press and Elsevier Inc．,PO Box 23451 Beijing 100023,China Fax:+86-(0)10-85381893 E-mail:wjg@wjgnet．com http://www．wjgnet．com The World Journal of Gastroenterology Editorial Board consists of 519 members,representing a team of worldwide experts in gastroenterology and hepatology．They are from 51 countries,including Albania(1),Algeria(1),Argentina(1),Australia(8), Austria(5),Belarus(1),Belgium(6),Brazil(1),Bulgaria(1),Canada(7),China(50),Costa Rica(1),Croatia(1),Denmark(6), Egypt(1),Finland(1),France(18),Germany(35),Greece(2),Hungary(2),Iceland(1),India(5),Iran(1),Ireland(1),Israel(2),Italy(41),Japan(132),Lithuania(1),Macedonia(1),Malaysia(3),Monaco(1),Netherlands(13),Norway(2),Pakistan(1),Philippines(1),Poland(2),Portugal(1),Russia(3),Singapore(2),Slovakia(1),South Africa(2),South Korea(6),Spain(20), Sri Lanka(1),Swaziland(1),Sweden(4),Switzerland(4),Turkey(3),United Kingdom(20),United States(90),Yugoslavia(1)． HONORARY EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Ke-Ji Chen,Professor Xiyuan Hospital,Chinese Tranditional Medicine University,Beijing 100091,China. kjchen@public．bta．net．
文摘7 studies on the effectiveness of peer and teacher feedback have been critically reviewed in this paper,some problems being perceived either in the research design or their research findings.Based on the detected problems,I put forward some suggestions for the future study and then draw some pedagogical implications.
文摘Since the result of effect comparison is important for teacher's decision making,roles teacher feedback and peer review play respectively and collaboratively in tertiary-level EFL writing context should be addressed via quantitative study as this paper proposed.Quantitative data should be collected from students'first drafts,second drafts and written comments from teachers and peers.Gains for overall scores between the first and second drafts and correlation between suggestions and gains should be examined.
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.
文摘The Joint Commission on Accreditation requires hospitals to conduct peer review to retain accreditation.Despite the intended purpose of improving quality medical care,the peer review process has suffered several setbacks throughout its tenure.In the 1980s,abuse of peer review for personal economic interest led to a highly publicized multimillion-dollar verdict by the United States Supreme Court against the perpetrating physicians and hospital.The verdict led to decreased physician participation for fear of possible litigation.Believing that peer review was critical to quality medical care,Congress subsequently enacted the Health Care Quality Improvement Act(HCQIA)granting comprehensive legal immunity for peer reviewers to increase participation.While serving its intended goal,HCQIA has also granted peer reviewers significant immunity likely emboldening abuses resulting in Sham Peer Reviews.While legal reform of HCQIA is necessary to reduce sham peer reviews,further measures including the need for standardization of the peer review process alongside external organizational monitoring are critical to improving peer review and reducing the prevalence of sham peer reviews.
基金funded by NSFC grant(71771205)CASISD presidential fund(Y8X1171Q01)CAS Youth Innovation Promotion Association fund(Y9J0361601)
文摘Purpose: The main goal of this paper is to show that international peer review can work in China’s context with satisfactory outcomes. Moreover, this paper also provides a reference for the practice of science and technology management.Design/methodology/approach: This paper starts with a discussion of two critical questions about the significance and design of international peer review. A case study of international peer review of CAS Centers for Excellence is further analyzed. Findings: International peer review may provide a solution to address the problem of quantitative oriented research evaluation in China. The case study of research evaluation of CAS Centers for Excellence shows that it is possible and feasible to conduct an international peer review in China’s context. When applying this approach to other scenarios, there are still many issues to consider including individualized design of international peer review combined with practical demands, and further improvement of theories and methods of international peer review. Research limitation: 1) Only the case of international peer review of CAS Centers for Excellence is analyzed;2) A relatively small number of respondents were surveyed in the questionnaire. Practical implications: The work presented in this study can be used as a reference for future studies.Originality/value: Currently, there are no similarly detailed studies exploring the significance and methodology of international peer review in China.
文摘Peer review is the cornerstone in scientific publication.Although peer review has paramount importance in ensuring the quality of the published literature,it still has a number of shortcomings.The present manuscript proposes a new method to improve the current peer review system by providing an interactive,dynamic platform that allows direct,anonymous interaction between the authors of submitted manuscripts and the reviewers.Such real-time interaction may help eliminate any problems related to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the reviewer’s comments or the authors’response,and would save time while keeping the identity of both parties anonymous.
