The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?

Recently many editors try to reduce the turnaround times of academic journals. Shorter turnaround times, however, will induce many additional submissions of low-quality papers, increasing significantly the workload of editors and referees, and the number of rejections prior to publication. I suggest several ideas how editors can shorten turnaround times and four ideas how they can still avoid frivolous submissions, thus improving the review process efficiency: higher submission fees; requiring authors to review papers in proportion to their submissions; using differential editorial delay – letting low-quality papers wait more; and banning papers from being submitted after a certain number of rejections.Academic publishing, first response times, editorial process, review process, refereeing

ICIS 2017 Panel Report: Break Your Shackles! Emancipating Information Systems from the Tyranny of Peer Review

The paper presents the report of a panel that debated the review process in the information systems (IS) discipline at ICIS 2017 in Seoul, Korea. The panel asked the fundamental question of whether we need to rethink the way we review papers in the discipline. The panelists partnered with the audience to explore some reviewing limitations in IS today and the ways that reviewing in the discipline might change to address some of its difficulties. We first report key concerns with modern reviewing. We then present arguments for and against three proposals (i.e., paying for reviews, mandatory reviews, and open reviews) and a panel audience vote on the issues. We neither advocate for nor condemn these solutions but rather use them to illustrate what we believe represent the core underlying issues with reviewing in the IS discipline. Specifically, we believe the key stumbling blocks to effectively improving our review process include 1) a lack of empirical data on actual practice, 2) a lack of clear goals, and 3) an ignorance of the possible solutions to the review dilemma that the wider literature articulates

Peer Review in Practice

Introduction Peer review constitutes one of the more paradoxical elements of academic research and dissemination: it is common for academics to complain about unhelpful feedback from their latest review, but the process is simultaneously seen as one of the bedrocks of assuring the quality of research. It does not take long to find anecdotal evidence of the value or pitfalls of peer review in trade publications such as the Times Higher Education or The Chronicle of Higher Education. Asked to share her own ‘horror stories’ in peer review for the Times Higher Education, Susan Bassnett comments that ‘it seems like a fine idea for work submitted to a journal, publisher or funding body to be assessed anonymously by independent experts’, but fears peer review ‘has grown into a monster’ as a result of an increasing volume of work requiring review, with detrimental effects for both authors and reviewers. Such comments suggest an urgent need to reconsider review practices. However, it is rare to see a scholarly examination of the process, and this report sets out to address this by evaluating key aspects of academic discussion of peer review. The following report considers the diverse range of practices that constitute peer review in both publishing and institutional structures, examining the history of peer review, and evaluating how innovative alternative models aim to resolve pressures on the current system. It does so with a particular focus on peer review in the Arts and Humanities (in connection with the AHRC Academic Book of the Future project), while looking at wider disciplinary and publishing considerations. Peer review is an expansive topic, and our research has revealed a number of fruitful avenues for future evaluation which we have not been able to cover in detail here. These include the selection and crediting of reviewers, the role of peer review in creative practice, the advent of paid review platforms, and the use of metrics as an alternative means of quantifying research value and impact. In particular, our discussion of peer review for publications emphasises practice in scholarly journals, as that is largely where discussion in scholarly and other literature focuses. However, further primary investigation might consider equivalent issues in the field of monograph publishing. Given the parameters of our study, alongside an evolving environment for peer review, and our own wish to experiment with peer review modes, this report is offered for post-publication peer review. We encourage readers to submit comments and suggestions additional sources and references, and for new avenues of research.The article was previously published in beta version (see https://www.stir.ac.uk/research/hub/publication/22749)

Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency?

Peer review is widely accepted as essential to ensuring scientific quality in academic journals, yet little training is provided in the specifics of how to conduct peer review. In this article we describe the different forms of peer review, with a particular focus on the differences between single-blind, double-blind and open peer review, and the advantages and disadvantages of each. These illustrate some of the challenges facing the community of authors, editors, reviewers and readers in relation to the process of peer review. We also describe other forms of peer review, such as post-publication review, transferable review and collaborative review, and encourage clinicians and academics at all training stages to engage in the practice of peer review as part of continuing professional development

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 2; referees: 2 approved]

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments

Library and Information Science Scholarly Journals Publishing Simulation: A Study

The author\u27s productivity is assessed based on publications, which requires a lot of motivation and time. Manuscripts get through several steps before being accepted and published. The purpose of this paper is to understand the time gap between acceptance to the publication of manuscripts in reputed journals of Library and Information Science. This paper is useful to contemporary researchers for knowing the journal publication duration. In this paper, we discussed the refereed and index journals in the field of library and information science. For this study, we collected the data from six LIS journals which were published from the 2020 January to December Asian region. The study focuses on detailed analyses of journal processing and publishing duration. The major contribution of this study gives the six LIS journal processing time they are: author manuscript submitted to accepted, accepted to published, and submitted to published period

Can dietary intake influence perception of and measured appearance? A systematic review : dietary intake and appearance

Appearance-based interventions have had some success in reducing smoking and sun exposure. Appearance may also motivate dietary behavior change if it was established that dietary improvement had a positive impact on appearance. The aims of this review are to evaluate the current evidence examining the relationship between dietary intake and appearance and to determine the effectiveness of dietary interventions on perceived or actual appearance. An electronic search of English language studies up to August 2012 was conducted using Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, SCOPUS and PsycINFO databases. Studies that included participants aged ≥ 18 years, that observed or altered dietary intake from actual food or dietary supplement use and assessed appearance-related outcomes were considered eligible. Data from 27 studies were extracted and assessed for quality using standardized tools. Nineteen studies were assessed as being of “positive” and four of “neutral” quality. All observational studies (n = 4741 participants) indicated that there was a significant association between various aspects of dietary intake and skin coloration and skin aging. The majority (16 studies, 769 participants) evaluated the effect of dietary supplements on skin appearance amongst females. Only one study examined the effect of actual food intake on appearance. Significant improvements in at least one actual or perceived appearance-related outcome (facial wrinkling, skin elasticity, roughness and skin color) following dietary intervention were shown as a result of supplementation. Further studies are needed in representative populations that examine actual food intake on appearance, using validated tools in a well-designed high quality RCTs.PostprintPeer reviewe

Safety and Effectiveness of Low-Level Laser Therapy in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Low Level Laser Therapy was introduced as an alternative non-invasive treatment for osteoarthritis, but its effectiveness is still controversial. The main objective of this article was to determine the safety and efficacy of LLLT in patients with knee osteoarthritis. In order to gather evidence, main medical databases as well as relevant websites were browsed without time limit. We searched with appropriate keywords and strategies. After quality assessment of studies, study data were extracted by two reviewers. Standard mean difference proposed through Inverse Variance was used in the meta-analysis using the random-effects model. Twelve values were used for the evaluation of heterogeneity. A total of 823 studies, 14 RCTs were selected after final review. There was a significant difference between LLLT and Placebo in pain at rest (p=0.02), pain at activity (p=0.01), total pain (p=0.03), WOMAC function (p=0.01), WOMAC stiffness (p=0.02) and WOMAC total (p<0.0001) in favor of the LLLT. There was no significant difference between LLLT and Placebo in WOMAC pain (p=0.09) and range of motion (p=0.1). In spite of some positive findings, this meta-analysis lacked data on how LLLT effectiveness is affected with important factors: wavelength, energy density, treatment duration, numbers of sessions the treatment, severity of KOA and site of application