Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors

A review of editorial policies of leading journals and of research relevant to scientific journals revealed conflicts between 'science' and 'scientists.” Owing to these conflicts, papers are often weak on objectivity and replicability. Furthermore, papers often fall short on importance, competence, intelligibility, or efficiency. Suggestions were made for editorial policies such as: (1) structured guidelines for referees, (2) open peer review, (3) blind reviews, and (4) full disclosure of data and method. Of major importance, an author's “Note to Referees” (describing the hypotheses and design, but not the results) was suggested to improve the objectivity of the ratings of importance and competence. Also, recommendations are made to authors for improving contributions to science (such as the use of multiple hypotheses) and for promoting their careers (such as using complex methods and obtuse writing).scientific journals, authors, research, editors

Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation

I reviewed the published empirical evidence concerning journal peer review, which consisted of 68 papers, all but three published since 1975. Peer review improves quality, but its use to screen papers has met with limited success. Current procedures to assure quality and fairness seem to discourage scientific advancement, especially important innovations, because findings that conflict with current beliefs are often judged to have defects. Editors can use procedures to encourage the publication of papers with innovative findings such as invited papers, early-acceptance procedures, author nominations of reviewers, results-blind reviews, structured rating sheets, open peer review, and, in particular, electronic publication. Some journals are currently using these procedures. The basic principle behind the proposals is to change the decision from whether to publish a paper to how to publish itpeer review, journals, publications

Making it in academic psychology: Demographic and personality correlates of eminence

Citations to published work, personality, and demographic characteristics were examined in a sample of male and female academic psychologists. A large sex difference was found in citations with men receiving significantly more recognition. Reputational rankings of graduate school and current institution were significantly related to citations, as were components of achievement motivation. Mastery and work needs were positively related to citations while competitiveness was negatively associated with the criterion. A model of attainment in psychology is proposed and possible explanations for the differential recognition of women are explored

THE KIOSK FOR DOCTORAL STUDIES IN THE US

The Kiosk is designed to reveal the compiled rankings of leading institution that is not exhaustive to include all of doctoral programs. I have, nevertheless, list the major follow-up institutions from the 2010 NRC report. Ranking for each program finally has been yielded by average number of 1996, 2010, and USNW ranking for the graduate programs. Hence the coverage in period is longitudinal possibly 1986 (the first year from last 1985 NRC) through 2020 (the last year for ten year interval of NRC practice, but not surely for every turn). The ranking of USNW graduate programs are mostly yearly, or changed with the interval of about three years for Natural and Social Sciences. The USNW ranking mostly was based on 2017-2018 version (eventually to determine the period of effect for this KIOSK), but in rare case, might be adjusted to avoid a sharp precariousness or in consideration of promotional equity