Scientific Publication Process Research Articles

So…….You Want to be a Peer Reviewer?

Peer review is essential to preserving the integrity of the scientific publication process. Peer reviewers must adhere to the norms of the peer review process, including confidentiality, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of interest, timeliness, constructiveness, and thoroughness. This mini review will discuss some of the different formats in which peer review might occur, as well as advantages and disadvantages of each. The topics then shift to providing advice for prospective reviewers, as well as a suggested format for use in writing a review.

Peer review in the global digital age: perspectives of publishing industry stakeholders

Peer review is a crucial component of the scientific publication process, enabling validation of research, identification of errors, and removal of potential bias. However, there are some well-known limitations, including slow publication cycles and overstringent gatekeeping. Artificial intelligence and digital technology are revolutionizing peer review and publishing by addressing some of the limitations, and fostering closer collaboration among scholars worldwide.1-3 This paradigm shift aligns with the principles of open science, enhancing the reach and impact of scholarly work. Digital tools for peer review are already transforming many aspects of this process, by enhancing quality control, automation of routine tasks, and expediting laborious aspects of the peer review process, thereby enhancing speed and efficiency. Digital platforms are reducing publication times and potentially allowing for the promotion of diversity and inclusivity of the peer reviewer pool by vastly enhancing global connectivity. Selecting qualified and impartial global reviewers in the digital context is vital for the future of our rapidly evolving and increasingly diverse publication landscape. Editors play a key role in oversight while providing reviewers with clear guidelines and training. In conclusion, digital tools assisting peer review will inevitably play an increasingly useful role in enhancing the efficiency, and potentially the inclusivity and objectivity of the process.

Prevalence of Short Peer Reviews in 3 Leading General Medical Journals

High-quality peer reviews are often thought to be essential to ensuring the integrity of the scientific publication process, but measuring peer review quality is challenging. Although imperfect, review word count could potentially serve as a simple, objective metric of review quality. To determine the prevalence of very short peer reviews and how often they inform editorial decisions on research articles in 3 leading general medical journals. This cross-sectional study compiled a data set of peer reviews from published, full-length original research articles from 3 general medical journals (The BMJ, PLOS Medicine, and BMC Medicine) between 2003 and 2022. Eligible articles were those with peer review data; all peer reviews used to make the first editorial decision (ie, accept vs revise and resubmit) were included. Prevalence of very short reviews was the primary outcome, which was defined as a review of fewer than 200 words. In secondary analyses, thresholds of fewer than 100 words and fewer than 300 words were used. Results were disaggregated by journal and year. The proportion of articles for which the first editorial decision was made based on a set of peer reviews in which very short reviews constituted 100%, 50% or more, 33% or more, and 20% or more of the reviews was calculated. In this sample of 11 466 reviews (including 6086 in BMC Medicine, 3816 in The BMJ, and 1564 in PLOS Medicine) corresponding to 4038 published articles, the median (IQR) word count per review was 425 (253-575) words, and the mean (SD) word count was 520.0 (401.0) words. The overall prevalence of very short (<200 words) peer reviews was 1958 of 11 466 reviews (17.1%). Across the 3 journals, 843 of 4038 initial editorial decisions (20.9%) were based on review sets containing 50% or more very short reviews. The prevalence of very short reviews and share of editorial decisions based on review sets containing 50% or more very short reviews was highest for BMC Medicine (693 of 2585 editorial decisions [26.8%]) and lowest for The BMJ (76 of 1040 editorial decisions [7.3%]). In this study of 3 leading general medical journals, one-fifth of initial editorial decisions for published articles were likely based at least partially on reviews of such short length that they were unlikely to be of high quality. Future research could determine whether monitoring peer review length improves the quality of peer reviews and which interventions, such as incentives and norm-based interventions, may elicit more detailed reviews.

ChatGPT identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review.

The peer review process is a critical step in ensuring the quality of scientific research. However, its subjectivity has raised concerns. To investigate this issue, I examined over 500 publicly available peer review reports from 200 published neuroscience papers in 2022-2023. OpenAI's generative artificial intelligence ChatGPT was used to analyze language use in these reports, which demonstrated superior performance compared to traditional lexicon- and rule-based language models. As expected, most reviews for these published papers were seen as favorable by ChatGPT (89.8% of reviews), and language use was mostly polite (99.8% of reviews). However, this analysis also demonstrated high levels of variability in how each reviewer scored the same paper, indicating the presence of subjectivity in the peer review process. The results further revealed that female first authors received less polite reviews than their male peers, indicating a gender bias in reviewing. In addition, published papers with a female senior author received more favorable reviews than papers with a male senior author, for which I discuss potential causes. Together, this study highlights the potential of generative artificial intelligence in performing natural language processing of specialized scientific texts. As a proof of concept, I show that ChatGPT can identify areas of concern in scientific peer review, underscoring the importance of transparent peer review in studying equitability in scientific publishing.

Preface

This year, Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development (JESSD) is proud to hold its fourth international virtual symposium, featuring world-class speakers and editors worldwide. We were incredibly honored to have invited Mohamad Nor Azra, Ph.D. from Head of Climate Change Adaptation Laboratory, Institute of Marine Biotechnology, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT), Prof. Dr.Arch. Iryna Bulakh from Darmstadt, Hesse, Germany, Dr. Ir. Haruki Agustina, M.Env.Eng.Sc. from Director of Contamination Restoration and Emergency Response of Hazardous Waste, Ministry of Environment and Forestry Indonesia, and Dr. Yuki M. A. Wardhana from Senior Vice President at PT Penjaminan Infrastruktur Indonesia (Persero).The symposium was held in a hybrid format, arranged online and offline, due to related restrictions during Covid-19 pandemic. I appreciate everyone’s participation in the fourth JESSD Symposium: International Symposium of Earth, Energy, Environmental Science, and Sustainable Development, despite the restrictive situation caused by the global Covid-19 pandemic. Instead of being postponed, this symposium was conducted hybridly in response to emerging issues mainly related to earth science, energy, environmental science, and sustainability. Moreover, this symposium also facilitates the publication of qualified research on Environment Sustainable after Covid-19 to contribute to the global response to the post-pandemic situation.This symposium is slightly different from the previous symposium and conference held last year. By making the best use of development in telecommunication platforms, we are able to gather virtually to share our insights and progress covering numerous subjects ranging from: the broad earth science, energy, and environmental science, and the special issues as well as Cleaner Production, Environmental Management and Protection, Environment during Post Covid-19, and Community Empowerment in Environmental Sectors. This symposium utilized Zoom and YouTube, a widely known cloud-based video conferencing tool, as its telecommunication platform.The symposium was held on 26-27 August 2023. Committees are based in School of Environmental Science, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. We are aware that a hybrid setup will not provide the same experience as an on-site symposium. However, it is in our nature as researchers to be undeterred by new challenges. The opportunity to host this event virtually allows us to facilitate cross-borders discussion and collaboration at lower cost and less impact on the environment through reducing carbon footprint. We have invited some prominent speakers from various regions to provide lectures on a wide range of environmental research. In addition, we have also invited world-class speakers and editors to help with your scientific publication process. The participants (presenters) come from 13 different countries all around the world, including: Iraq, Malaysia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan, Filipina, Jepang, Nigeria, China, Germany, Ukraine, Vietnam, Russia.List of committees, speakers are available in this Pdf.

Behind the curtains of academic publishing: strategic responses of economists and business scholars

Bibliometric measurements are becoming omnipresent and crucially important for academic career decisions. The measured criteria induce strong incentives to align academics’ time and efforts. Based on a survey of economics and business scholars in German-speaking countries, this article empirically explores the interactions between scientific journal metrics and the behavior of authors in the publishing process. The impact different types of pressure have on their decisions is emphasized. In line with rational choice, authors generally move down in journal ranking as they resubmit their papers. While the process is highly influenced by random elements, the Scimago journal rank provides the best fit to researcher’s behavior. Doctoral students initially submit to lower ranked journals compared to higher academic positions, which is likely due to the time pressure they face. The empirical findings improve our understanding of strategic responses in the scientific publishing process. Qualified lotteries, along with other propositions, are suggested to mitigate adverse responses by academics.

Increasing Undergraduate Student Knowledge about Journal Peer Review Using Outside Reading and In-Class Discussion.

Peer review is an important part of the scientific publishing process that serves as a key quality control step. Learning that scientific publications go through peer review builds scientific literacy and may increase trust in published findings. Though the publication and peer review process is an established part of the practice of communicating science, this topic is not commonly taught at the undergraduate level, even in classes that regularly require students to read primary literature or author manuscripts. Often, undergraduate course lessons on peer review focus on the practice of performing peer review on other students' writing rather than explaining how this process works for independent scientists publishing their novel work as primary literature articles. As a result, there is a need for more resources related to teaching about publication and peer review. This work presents a plan for out-of-class reading and an in-class lesson on peer review practices in biology. In this module, students learn the order of events in scientific publishing and consider the relationship between peer review and public trust in science by analyzing survey data. Students completing this activity reported knowledge gains related to scientific publishing and peer review and demonstrated their knowledge on an in-class assessment. Though this activity was developed for a biochemistry course, it may be implemented in various life sciences classes from introductory to advanced levels to improve student scientific literacy.

The p-Value Debate and Statistical (Mal)practice – Implications for the Agricultural and Food Economics Community

A vivid debate is ongoing in the scientific community about statistical malpractice and the related publication bias. No general consensus exists on the consequences and this is reflected in heterogeneous rules defined by scientific journals on the use and reporting of statistical inference. This paper aims at providing an overview on the debate, discussing how it is perceived by the agricultural economics community, and deriving implications for our roles as researchers, contributors to the scientific publication process, and teachers. Following a ‘Mixed Methods Review’, we start by summarizing the current state of the p-value debate in the context of the replication crisis and commonly applied statistical practices in our community. This is followed by motivation, design, results and discussion of an explorative and descriptive survey on statistical knowledge and practice among the researchers in the agricultural economics community in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Instead of providing specific guidelines or rules, we derive implications for our roles in the scientific process to support a needed long-term cultural change regarding empirical scientific practices. Acceptance of scientific work should largely be based on the theoretical and methodological rigor and where the perceived relevance arises from the questions asked, the methodology employed, and the data used but not from the results generated. Revised and clear journal guidelines, the creation of resources for teaching and research, and public recognition of good practice are suggested measures to move forward.

Editorial du Professeur Serigne Omar Sarr

Dear readers, Dear authors ! The second publication of your quarterly journal is available on time thanks to the commitment of the peer reviewers, the publisher (Presses Universitaires de Dakar), the scientific and editorial committees and the Secretariat which made it possible to proceed within the planned deadlines and in scientific rigor, the evaluation and publication process. This volume 2, number 1 includes eight scientific articles submitted by young authors but also seasoned seniors which contributes to the transparent and equitable dissemination of science in open access. These original articles indexed in Scopus address medicinal and food plants, the optimization and validation of analytical methods for drug control, the quality of powdered milk sold in Dakar, the accessibility and quality of water in Mboro (Senegal), the quality of honeys from Casamance (Senegal), the continuing training of community pharmacists in particular. In the format of a Letter to the Editor, we are publishing a contribution from the American Pharmacopoeia through the PQM+ (Promoting the Quality of Medicines) team which sheds light on the problem of quality assurance of medicines in Africa South of the Sahara and the levels of performance/recognition of skills of official structures responsible for controlling the quality of medicines and other health products. The main results of this example of practical North-South cooperation are shared and bring a bit of hope in the fight against substandard/falsified medical products for better protection of population health through i) an efficient quality control infrastructure and ii) accessibility to quality, safe and effective medical products. This present issue pursues the objective of this journal which offers an opportunity to make Africa's scientific writing resonate more in a globalized world in which multidisciplinary and transversal analytical sciences are at the heart of any process of competitiveness, regulation and development. We thank the entire editorial team and peer reviewers for their collaboration. To your manuscripts and excellent reading!

PEMODELAN HASIL REKAYASA KEBUTUHAN PERANGKAT LUNAK SISTEM JURNAL ELEKTRONIK TERINTEGRASI "IDEOGRAM"

E-Journal or Electronic Journal can be interpreted as online storage of information and communication. The characteristics of the E-Journal are that it utilizes electronic technology where publishers, writers, and readers can communicate with each other and use ICT, or written work data is stored so that it can be accessed anywhere and anytime when needed. One of the efforts to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the scientific publication process requires using various ICTs. Design can use the electronic journal information system to solve problems in compiling a journal integration system based on software requirements analysis. In addition, the system development method used is a waterfall. The design uses UML, ERD, Wireframe, and database implementation using DBMS. The research results are realized in the form of a conceptual design of the system so that it can accommodate the needs to make the system. The development also can choose journals that are following their fields so that they can estimate open access journals based on the estimated submission time.

In Defence of Scholarly Bullshit—a Reflection on Kirchherr

The recent publication by Kirchherr on bullshit in sustainability and transitions studies has generated much contention. In the intentionally controversial paper, the author uses profanity to provoke and shock the readers. He argues that the metric-driven logic of the academic system has allowed subpar scholarship—recognised as scholarly bullshit, to permeate the field and that up to 50% of the articles (in particular, those on circular economy) published in reputable sustainability and transitions journals can be considered of generally inferior quality. In this reflection on Kirchherr’s piece, I aim to contribute to the debate that the author has instigated by offering an alternative opinion. Namely, I find it necessary to warn against the implications of the negative connotations that the term scholarly bullshit encapsulates since the actual situation in the field may not be as problematic and unfavourable as it sounds. By assessing the arguments presented in the original paper, I explain not only why the existence of subpar scholarship is not a problem but also explicate some positive effects of the phenomenon that make it a potentially desirable element of the scientific publication process. Although I agree with the original paper’s overall argument about the increasing presence of buzzwords in recent scholarly work, I conclude that weeding out presumably “inferior” scholarship may lead to a type of “scholarly eugenics”, resulting in the loss of the interdisciplinary richness and fertility that have been driving the field of sustainability and transitions so far.

MODELING OF THE “IDRESM” ELECTRONIC JOURNAL PUBLICATION PORTAL USING THE WATERFALL MODEL

The utilization of various information technologies can increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the scientific publication process. Design can realize one of the uses of Information Technology in designing an electronic journal information system is that tools can use to solve these problems. The electronic journal information system is the collection, data collection, management, and or publication of scientific journals electronically. In addition, if the correct information can accompany the selection of journals, it will increase the effectiveness of publication activities in terms of time efficiency. Therefore, to support time management must be supported by a system design that includes journal subsystem information in planning the selection of open access journals when publishing. Based on the description above, this integration system aims to assist in compiling a journal integration system design based on software requirements analysis. In addition, the system development method used is the waterfall which consists of requirement analysis, system design, implementation, testing, deployment, dan operation &amp; maintenante. The design uses a DBMS, UML, ERD, Wireframe, and database implementation.The results indicate that the system can assist in selecting journals that are following their fields to estimate open access journals based on the estimated submission time. In addition, the integrated approach that has been successfully implemented as a system has four subsystems: the primary database, human resource system, index system, and payment system.

Beyond playing 20 questions with nature: Integrative experiment design in the social and behavioral sciences.

The dominant paradigm of experiments in the social and behavioral sciences views an experiment as a test of a theory, where the theory is assumed to generalize beyond the experiment's specific conditions. According to this view, which Alan Newell once characterized as "playing twenty questions with nature," theory is advanced one experiment at a time, and the integration of disparate findings is assumed to happen via the scientific publishing process. In this article, we argue that the process of integration is at best inefficient, and at worst it does not, in fact, occur. We further show that the challenge of integration cannot be adequately addressed by recently proposed reforms that focus on the reliability and replicability of individual findings, nor simply by conducting more or larger experiments. Rather, the problem arises from the imprecise nature of social and behavioral theories and, consequently, a lack of commensurability across experiments conducted under different conditions. Therefore, researchers must fundamentally rethink how they design experiments and how the experiments relate to theory. We specifically describe an alternative framework, integrative experiment design, which intrinsically promotes commensurability and continuous integration of knowledge. In this paradigm, researchers explicitly map the design space of possible experiments associated with a given research question, embracing many potentially relevant theories rather than focusing on just one. Researchers then iteratively generate theories and test them with experiments explicitly sampled from the design space, allowing results to be integrated across experiments. Given recent methodological and technological developments, we conclude that this approach is feasible and would generate more-reliable, more-cumulative empirical and theoretical knowledge than the current paradigm - and with far greater efficiency.

How did the scientific publication system respond to the Covid-19 pandemic?

The Covid-19 pandemic introduced new complicating factors for the process of scientific publication, such as an unprecedented volume of article submissions. These changes have the potential to significantly alter how scientific communication is done, thus demanding scrutiny. To assess how the scientific publication system responded to the challenges brought by the Covid-19 pandemic. The following topics of interest were analyzed with the help of a review of the pertinent scientific literature: a) How were review quality and publication speed affected by the increased volume of Covid-19-related submissions; b) How were Covid-19 retraction and citation rates affected; and c) How was the scientific communication process impacted by the widespread use of “preprints” as a valid (“citable”) source of information. Concerning review quality, some extremely dubious articles on Covid-19 treatment managed to be published, some of which were in relatively prestigious journals. Regarding retractions (contrary to initial reports), no increase in retractions rate was evident as time passed and the system reached its “steady state”. As for preprints, problems associated with their use are the practice of “retracting” (withdrawing) preprints with no adequate retraction standards and how to evaluate preprint quality effectively. As a whole, the scientific publication system seems to have survived the unusual circumstances arising from the pandemic; e.g., no increase in retractions rates was observed. Problems remain to be dealt with, particularly regarding improving the peer review quality and the citation/evaluation/retracting of preprints.

Preface

This year, Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development (JESSD) is proud to hold its second international virtual symposium, featuring world-class speakers and editors worldwide. We were incredibly honored to have invited RR. Ratih Dyah Kusumawati, Ph.D. from Center for Resilience and Sustainability Studies (CRESS), Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Indonesia, Assoc. Prof. Hui Nee Au Yong, Ph.D. from Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR), Mari Eko Mulyani, Ph.D. from School of Geography and The Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom and School of Environmental Science, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia, Assoc. Prof. Hironori Hamasaki from Graduate School of Fisheries and Environmental Sciences, Nagasaki University, Japan, Dian Novarina, M.Sc. from Deputy Director of Sustainability and Stakeholder Engagement, PT Riau Andalan Pulp and Paper (APRIL), Jessica Hanafi, Ph.D. from Executive Director PT. Life Cycle Indonesia, and Dr. Ir. Haruki Agustina M.Sc. from Director of Contaminated Land Recovery and Emergency Response Hazardous and Toxic Waste and Non-Hazardous and Toxic Materials, Ministry of Environment and Forestry.The symposium was held in virtual format due to related restrictions during COVID-19 pandemic. I appreciate everyone’s participation in the second JESSD Symposium: International Symposium of Earth, Energy, Environmental Science, and Sustainable Development, despite the restrictive situation caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic. Instead of being postponed, this symposium was conducted virtually in response to emerging issues mainly related to earth science, energy, environmental science, and sustainability. Moreover, this symposium also facilitates the publications of qualified research on COVID-19 to contribute to the global response towards the pandemic situation.This symposium is slightly different from the previous symposium and conference held last year. By making the best use of development in telecommunication platforms, we are able to gather virtually to share our insights and progress covering numerous subjects ranging from: the broad earth science, energy, and environmental science, and the special issues of COVID-19 Research as well as Community Engagement for Better Environment. This symposium utilized Zoom and Youtube, a widely known cloud-based video conferencing tool, as its telecommunication platform.The symposium was held on 27-28 August 2022. Committees are based in School of Environmental Science, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. We are aware that a virtual setup will not provide the same experience as an on-site symposium. However, it is in our nature as researchers to be undeterred by new challenges. The opportunity to host this event virtually allows us to facilitate cross-borders discussion and collaboration at lower cost and less impact on the environment through reducing carbon footprint. We have invited some prominent speakers from various regions to provide lectures on a wide range of environmental research. In addition, we have also invited world-class speakers and editors to help with your scientific publication process. The participants (presenters) are coming from 16 different countries all around the world, including: Malaysia, South Korea, Netherland, Ukraine, Thailand, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, Brazil, Poland, China, Germany, Tunisia, and Indonesia.We are glad that we received lots of submissions from the symposium and selected a bunch of high-quality papers and compiled them into the proceedings after reviewing them using the double-blind peer review procedure. The symposium is considered successful. Signal loss and some technical issues happened during parallel sessions but had been well and quickly addressed by technical assistants, without causing any significant delay. I express my deep gratitude to the editors: Editors committee: Dr. Ahyahudin Sodri, Dr. Herdis Herdiansyah, Mari E. Mulyani, D.Phil., Dr. Stefanie Steinebach, Prof. Dr. Ing. Ir. Misri Gozan, M.Tech., Dr. Djoni Hartono, Ratih Dyah Kusumastuti, Ph.D., Prof. Dr. Ivandini Tribidasari Anggraningrum, and committees Dr. Herdis Herdiansyah, Nova Amalia Sakina, Azhar Firdaus, Arty Dwi Januari, Hafizha Ilma Qadriina, Sinan Vidi Lazuardi, Salma Mar’atus Sholihah, and HIMPASILING UI Team for their time, hard work, and contribution to support this symposium during this challenging time.I would like to take this opportunity also to express my gratitude for our sponsors, (Danone Indonesia, Induk Koperasi Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia (Inkopol), PT Arlindo Grafimedia, PT Riau Andalan Pulp and Paper (April Group), Bank Rakyat Indonesia, APP Sinar Mas, Harita Nickel, Greenera Consulting, Pertamina Patra Niaga, Starborn Chemical, PT. Prima Kana Energy, Waskita, Roatex, One Global Synergy, and Lintasarta) and also for Himpasiling (Himpunan Mahasiswa Pascasarjana Ilmu Lingkungan) Universitas Indonesia 2022 period for conducting the joint session. Last but not the least, we send our sincere thanks to the IOP publisher for publishing the proceedings.Jakarta, 27 August 2022Editor-in-Chief,Dr. Herdis HerdiansyahList of committees are available in this Pdf.

Disconnecting the evaluation of scientific results from their diffusion

The traditional way to communicate research results by publishing scientific journal articles addresses two main purposes: the evaluation of scientific information and its diffusion to the scientific community. These two key features can now be addressed separately. Indeed, preprint servers now allow rapid and free diffusion in open access. The recent development of portable peer-review services for preprints addresses the need for the evaluation of scientific results. The Peer Community In <http://www.peercommunityin.org> (PCI) initiative was created in 2017 as an alternative to the costly and somewhat opaque traditional publishing system. Its aim is to create communities of researchers evaluating and recommending preprints for free. Following the launch of Peer Community in Ecology <https://ecology.peercommunityin.org/> , Peer Community in Evolutionary Biology <https://evolbiol.peercommunityin.org/> , 15 thematic PCIs <https://peercommunityin.org/current-pcis/> have already been created. Once they have deposited their preprint in a preprint server or in an open repository, authors can submit it to one of these thematic PCIs. One of the many recommenders (the equivalent of associate editors in traditional journals) can decide to organize its peer-reviewed evaluation. If the preprint is accepted, the corresponding PCI publishes a recommendation text and the peer-review history (reviews, decisions, and author responses). The PCI-recommended preprint has the same value as any journal article, but it can still be further published in a journal including Peer Community Journal if the authors wish to do so. Deeply rooted in the open science context, PCI advocates for transparency of the peer-review process and decisions, and for the independence and reproducibility of scientific evaluation. As a non-profit organisation entirely funded by universities, institutions and libraries, PCI offers authors the possibility to publish their articles free of charge in open access. Because the different communities are created and managed only by scientists for scientists, PCI gives researchers back control over the scientific publication process.

Research Methods: How to Perform an Effective Peer Review.

Scientific peer review has existed for centuries and is a cornerstone of the scientific publication process. Because the number of scientific publications has rapidly increased over the past decades, so has the number of peer reviews and peer reviewers. In this paper, drawing on the relevant medical literature and our collective experience as peer reviewers, we provide a user guide to the peer review process, including discussion of the purpose and limitations of peer review, the qualities of a good peer reviewer, and a step-by-step process of how to conduct an effective peer review.

PEERING, VIEWING AND REVIEWING: WHAT MAKES A PEER REVIEW GOOD

Peer review is an integral part of an ethical scientific publication process. Though not perfect, it has not been replaceable in the last couple of centuries since the advent of scientific journals. Recent innovations include online anonymized credits for peer review that can be used to augment an academician’s resume. Submissions and retraction are ever growing, increasing the demands from peer reviewers. The rewards may not seem commensurate but any person of science should contribute to peer review as a guardian of science. This short review looks at the ideal peer review along with inherent challenges. It makes suggestions on how novice and intermediate reviewers can improve their contributions as well as introduces various resources relevant for peer review.

Are We Sure We Fully Understand What an Infodemic Is? A Global Perspective on Infodemiological Problems.

Infodemic is defined as an information epidemic that can lead to engaging in dangerous behavior. Although the most striking manifestations of the latter occurred on social media, some studies show that dismisinformation is significantly influenced by numerous additional factors, both web-based and offline. These include social context, age, education, personal knowledge and beliefs, mood, psychological defense mechanisms, media resonance, and how news and information are presented to the public. Moreover, various incorrect scientific practices related to disclosure, publication, and training can also fuel such a phenomenon. Therefore, in this opinion article, we seek to provide a comprehensive overview of the issues that need to be addressed to bridge the gap between science and the public and build resilience to the infodemic. In particular, we stress that the infodemic cannot be curbed by simply disproving every single false or misleading information since the belief system and the cultural or educational background are chief factors regarding the success of fake news. For this reason, we believe that the process of forming a critical sense should begin with children in schools (ie, when the mind is more receptive to new ways of learning). Furthermore, we also believe that themes such as scientific method and evidence should be at the heart of the university education of a future scientist. Indeed, both the public and scientists must be educated on the concepts of evidence and validity of sources, as well as learning how to dialogue appropriately with each other. Finally, we believe that the scientific publishing process could be greatly improved by paying reviewers for their work and by ceasing to pursue academic success at all costs.

How to Navigate the Scientific Publishing Process

How to Navigate the Scientific Publishing Process