Abstracts from the 19th International Congress of Nutrition and Dietetics 2024

The American Journal of Psychiatry Residents' Journal: Training the Next Generation of Academic Psychiatrists.

Editorial note and Conference Highlights of Journal of Otology & Rhinology

The hidden work of a journal editor

The JAMA and NEJM Rulings and Their Impact on the Sanctity of Confidential Peer Review

This is the 21st meeting of the scientific, peer-reviewed presentation section of the Association of Chiropractic Colleges (ACC) Educational Conference, now a part of the ACC–Research Agenda Conference (ACC-RAC). This conference has grown substantially since its humble beginnings in 1994. The theme of this year's conference is “Aiming for effective change: Leadership in chiropractic education, research, and clinical practice,” which is very fitting. If the true essence of leadership is to implement effective change, then in my observation over the past 2 decades, I can say that we have done much as it relates to education and research in the chiropractic profession. For leaders to be successful, they must (1) establish direction and vision, (2) communicate goals, and (3) develop coalitions and alliances. The ACC Peer-Review Committee continues to establish direction and vision for scientific presentations, communicate these goals, and develop alliances in order to improve the current state of science and scholarship through the scholarly art of peer review. We are pleased that each year we observe the quality of presentations improve and exceed the quality of the previous year. We are honored to be a part of the quality improvement of scholarship in the chiropractic profession. The purpose of this summary report is to provide a brief review of the peer-review processes for the ACC-RAC 2014.

2006 Call for Abstracts

Fifty Years of Critical Care Medicine: The Editors' Perspective.

Editorial

Peer review on the Internet: A better class of conversation

Peer review is one way scholarly journals can maintain rigor and increase the quality of published manuscripts. The purpose of this article is to describe in detail the peer review process as implemented by the Journal of Research in Technical Careers. Suggestions for successful submissions are provided, including common problems that lead to delays in the peer review and publication process or even rejection. Clarification on topics such as self-plagiarism will be of particular interest to graduate student authors or early career researchers. Questions frequently encountered by the journal editors are also addressed.

Special issues of scholarly journals have become more common during the last decade of management research. We review this trend and assess the effectiveness of special issues for knowledge dissemination. Methods include interviews with journal editors, compiling data on time to publication and on impact and quality of special issues for five mainstream management journals, and a case study chronicling the creation of the Organization Science special issue on “Knowledge, Knowing, and Organizations.” The findings show that journal special issue articles appear to be published more quickly than regular issue articles (time to publication), and for three of the five journals there is a significant difference in impact (measured as citation counts per article) when special and regular issue articles are compared. Further, we find evidence of greater variation in the quality of special issue articles compared to regular issue articles, although this reflects special issues publishing exceptional articles rather than the inclusion of substandard ones. The case analysis suggests that a series of preconferences on a common topic prior to a special issue did not appear to impact the type of papers submitted to or published in the special issue. We discuss the role of special issues and preconferences in knowledge development in organization science.

<i>Epilepsia</i> and the rough seas of medical publishing

Several divergent standpoints are hosted under the umbrella of Peer Review. Authors, who wish to see the results of scrupulous work published, in the anticipation of career promotion or secure funding. Editors, who are under pressure to identify sound and novel research. Reviewers, who try to fit a thoughtful and time-consuming process within busy schedules, often receiving no credit for it. And Publishers competing in a transforming landscape of fast and abundant science publishing. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Moving toward a more objective peer review process

Measuring Orthopaedic Outcome: Shoulder Outcome Measures