Paper Submission Process Research Articles

The Quality Assist: A Technology-Assisted Peer Review Based on Citation Functions to Predict the Paper Quality

This study aims to develop a prediction model for paper quality assessment to support technology-assisted peer review. The prediction technique is intended to reduce the review burden, which is becoming a critical issue in today’s paper submission process. However, most existing works on this topic were built by involving the reviewers’ comments, which is considered unfair and inapplicable for reducing the review burden. Therefore, our prediction method relies only on features extracted from the paper to address this issue. The method covers three tasks as follows: two are classification tasks and one is a regression task. The classification tasks predict the final review decision (accepted-rejected) and estimate the paper quality (good-poor), while a regression task predicts the review scores. Additionally, the classification and regression tasks are implemented using three main features i.e., citing sentence features developed based on the labeling scheme of citation functions, regular sentence features created by applying the label of citation functions to non-citation text, and reference-based features constructed by identifying the source of citations. Furthermore, the classification experiments on the dataset obtained from the International Conference on Learning Representations 2017–2020 showed that our methods are more effective in the good-poor task than the accepted-rejected task by demonstrating the best accuracy of 0.75 and 0.73, respectively. Moreover, we also reached a satisfactory recall of 0.99 using only the citing sentence features to obtain as many good papers as possible in the good-poor task. Our regression experiments indicate that the best result in predicting the average review score is higher than the individual review score by showing Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 1.34 and 1.71, respectively.

German Medical Data Sciences in Studies in Health Technology and Informatics - Reflections on the Fifth Volume.

Since 2017, the German Society for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology e.V. (GMDS) offers the submission of full papers to the annual meetings, optional in Studies in Health Technologies and Informatics (Stud HIT) or in GMS Medical Informatics, Biometrics, and Epidemiology (MIBE). GMDS' aim is to increase the attractiveness of the conference and paper submission process in particular for young scientists and to increase the visibility of the conference. A standardized peer review process was established. Since 2017, a 25-35% of the contributions have been submitted as full papers. A total of 177 papers were published in Stud HTI. With an unofficial journal impact factor of 1.088 (2019) and 0.540 (2020), the papers were cited with a frequency similarly to national medical journals or full paper contributions of International medical informatics conferences.

MANAJEMEN PENGELOLAAN ARTIKEL PADA INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCED COMPUTER SCIENCE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS (ICACSIS)

On the contribution to scientific publications, The Faculty of Computer Science Universitas Indonesia (Fasilkom UI) holds an annual international conference entitled International Conference on Advance Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS). This international conference is aimed to be a platform for scientists all over the world to present their findings to other colleagues of the same interest. The process of collecting papers from these particular countries is not easy. Thus, a system that can automatically manage the paper submission process is needed. There are numerous webbased conference management systems on the Internet. Despite the basic common features, many of them offer various features that distinguish them from the others. This paper presents various features that are available in the market, analyzes the functions of features that meets the ICACSIS paper management’s requirement and integrating both the former and the later.

162

Introduction: To ensure the rights and safety of research participants, protocols for quality improvement studies are typically reviewed by Research Ethics Boards (REBs) before commencement. We previously found that the median time to REB approval was approximately 2.5 months (IQR 1.5, 5 months) for a low risk randomized trial. The objectives of this study were to analyze time from REB submission to REB approval, time from contract proposal to approval, and predictors of these periods, for a one month retrospective audit. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that time to REB approval would be longer in smaller ICUs and hospitals, ICUs without national quality improvement experience, centers requiring full REB review, a paper submission process, and French application. Methods: We analyzed the process and outcomes of individual REB applications and contracts for a one month retrospective audit of thromboprophylaxis prescribing in 28 North American medical-surgical ICUs [CONECCKT-T (Co-operative Network of Critical Care Knowledge Translation- Thromboprophylaxis)]. Results: CONECCKT-T approval was granted by 22 unique REBs; all but 2 applications were approved without revisions. Of 22 applications, 14 (63.6%) were expedited, 8 (36.4%) were electronic rather than paper-based, and 5 (22.7%) were in French. The time to REB approval was 21.5 (9-44) days [median (interquartile range)]; the only feature associated with shorter time to approval was expedited rather than regular submission (12.5 vs 27.5 days, p=0.02). Contract initiation to full execution took 74 (57-89) days; no factors predicted shorter time to execution. Conclusions: For a one month retrospective audit with waived informed consent, time for contract execution was more than three times as long (10.5 weeks) as time to REB approval (3 weeks). To encourage quality improvement initiatives using low risk study designs in the ICU, more efficient, cost-effective document management processes are needed.

Conference program management using the Internet

An increasing number of conferences encourage or require electronic submission of papers. As program chair of the 1996 Sigmetrics conference, the author ran the conference paper submission process electronically. The author approached the task with a number of goals. He encountered a few surprises along the way, and can now comment on the benefits and drawbacks to the Internet based approach. The system developed to manage Sigmetrics 96 (WIMPE-Web Interface for Managing Programs Electronically) can be used to manage other conferences.