Transgression from drawing to making

a peer reviewed journal article

Free, Full-Text, Scholarly Journals on the Web

In the November, 2000 issue of College & Research Libraries, Michael Fesmire and Elizabeth Young had a fascinating article entitled, Free Scholarly Electronic Journals: What Access Do College and University Libraries Provide? In the article, they discussed the rapid growth of these free, academic, peer-reviewed journals on the Internet that covered all different subject areas. Through careful effort, the authors had located over 200 scholarly, full-text, peer reviewed journals, many of which were indexed in major services such as ERIC, Medline, MathSciNet, INSPEC, and C henucal Abstracts. They also noted, though, that most college and university libraries were not making use of these free resources

These are the echoes: Sound Proof 2008-2012

Article in peer-reviewed journal Culture/Kultura for their thematic issue, Art Media and Cultural Memory. Based on the conference talk given at CCCS Annual Conference on Cultural Memory 4-7 September 2013

Development, intervention, and international order

© 2013, Cambridge University Press. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Development, intervention, and international order, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0260210513000260

Peer Review system: A Golden standard for publications process

Peer review process helps in evaluating and validating of research that is published in the journals. U.S. Office of Research Integrity reported that data fraudulence was found to be involved in 94% cases of misconduct from 228 identified articles between 1994–2012. If fraud in published article are significantly as high as reported, the question arise in mind, were these articles peer reviewed? Another report said that the reviewers failed to detect 16 cases of fabricated article of Jan Hendrick Schon. Superficial peer reviewing process does not reveals suspicion of misconduct. Lack of knowledge of systemic review process not only demolish the academic integrity in publication but also loss the trust of the people of the institution, the nation, and the world. The aim of this review article is to aware stakeholders specially novice reviewers about the peer review system. Beginners will understand how to review an article and they can justify better action choices in dealing with reviewing an article

Putting it Right? The Labour Party's Big Shift on Immigration Since 2010

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Putting it right? The labour party's big shift on immigration since 2010, which has been published in final form at 10.1111/1467-923X.12091. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving

Do Congressional Earmarks Increase Research Output at Universities?

For twenty years universities have been able to bypass peer-reviewed research competition for federal funding and seek a direct appropriation of funding from Congress. Proponents of this earmarking claim that this funding helps the university build the infrastructure needed to be able to compete for peer-reviewed funding. Opponents claim this funding is used poorly and is less than productive than peer-reviewed funding. This paper attempts to answer this question by examining whether earmarked funding, when treated as a stock of capital, increases the number of academic articles published and/or the number of citations per article published. Using two panel data sets that span 1980 to 1998, incorporating university and year fixed effects, and using an instrumental variables estimation, this paper shows that while the number of articles published increase, the number of citations per article decrease. Depending on the data set used the annual increase in articles ranges, on average, between 8 and 14 percent. The annual decrease in citations per article ranges between 9 and 57 percent. If we concentrate only on earmarks for agriculture, earmarks that often are for small discrete projects, the results suggest the effect from an increase in earmarked funding is not statistically different from zero for both publications and citations per publication. These results suggest that earmarked funding may increase the quantity of publications but decreases the quality of the publications and the performance of earmarked funding is lower than that from using peer-reviewed funding.congressional earmarking, research funding, universities