Priority criteria in peer review of scientific articles

Nedić, Olgica; Dekanski, Aleksandar

doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1869-6

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research also suggests that the quality of peer review is a complex concept, which strongly depends on the multiple, often ambiguous functions that this process has (e.g., Cowley 2015 ; Lamont et al 2009 ; Ma et al 2013 ; Pontille and Torny 2015 ; Ragone et al 2013 ). For instance, current research on peer review sees it as an engine to select excellent, innovative or rigorous research and avoid publishing below standard contributions (Nedić and Dekanski 2016 ). Ideally, such a filter should make the outcome of the process objective, unbiased and predictable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: the case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the fate of manuscripts that were rejected from JASSS-The Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, the flagship journal of social simulation. We tracked 456 manuscripts that were rejected from 1997 to 2011 and traced their subsequent publication as journal articles, conference papers or working papers. We compared the impact factor of the publishing journal and the citations of those manuscripts that were eventually published against the yearly impact factor of JASSS and the number of citations achieved by the JASSS mean and top cited articles. Only 10% of the rejected manuscripts were eventually published in a journal that was indexed in the Web of Science, although most of the rejected manuscripts were published elsewhere. Being exposed to more than one round of reviews before rejection, having received a more detailed reviewer report and being subjected to higher inter-reviewer disagreement were all associated with the number of citations received when the manuscript was eventually published. This indicates that peer review could contribute to increasing the quality even of rejected manuscripts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: the case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research output is the principal method by which researchers demonstrate their influence and contribution. Scientific contribution was ranked as the second most important criterion in the evaluation of scientific papers, after research originality [ 23 ]. This indicates that the value of scientific papers can be demonstrated through their possible contribution to science.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally, personal testimonials of the influence that a specific scientist has had on other researchers were the only manner in which to demonstrate scientific contributions. Despite the existence of peer review bias among reviewers, it is still considered the optimal method for assessing scientific contributions [ 23 ]. Nonetheless, some researchers support the citation count method; for instance, over half of the scientists interviewed for Aksnes’s study [ 29 ] agreed that citation counts received by papers reflect their scientific contributions and value.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do extraordinary science and technology scientists balance their publishing and patenting activities?

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated whether 12 scientists who had received the National Medal of Science and the National Medal of Technology and Innovation balanced publishing and patenting activities. The results demonstrated that although the scientist were recognized for their contributions to science and technology, the majority of recipients were not prolific researchers, and some were not influential. Notably, one scientist had not been granted a single patent. This indicated that scientific and technological contributions may not necessarily correspond with influential scientific publications and patents. Moreover, only two scientists had filed for patents before publishing, and they also invested more time developing technological inventions. Most recipients were science- or technology-oriented scientists. Few scientists balanced their publishing and patenting activities, and demonstrated excellent research and technology performance.

show abstract

“…The principles of ethics of research publications are observed in two modes of reviewing: (1) single-blind review (the traditional method where the reviewer's name is hidden from the author); (2) double-blind review (both author and reviewer remain anonymous) (Tomkins et al, 2017). There are also new formats of open review: The names of both the author and the reviewer are known, or an open review is published along with the article (Nedic and Dekanski, 2016). The issue of plagiarism has long been known, for example, in the United Kingdom, making up 20-25% in 1941 and 60-65% in the 1990s.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intellectual property and quality of education: Exploring the academic integrity among medical students

Beketov

Лебедева

2022

Front. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers an innovative course for building and improving knowledge on plagiarism. The tasks were as follows: (1) analyze existing knowledge about intellectual property and plagiarism among medical students before and after taking the special course; (2) examine the causes affecting students’ intellectual property infringement. To assess the awareness of academic integrity and plagiarism among medical students, the author’s questionnaire was used. The sample consisted of 658 students who were divided into two groups. The mean age was 22.41 ± 0.63 years (group 1) and 26.31 ± 0.83 years (group 2). In order to raise awareness of intellectual property and plagiarism, Intellectual Property in Medicine course was offered. The level of duplicate publication and compilation fell. The number of students who believe plagiarism is a moral issue increased. Plagiarism is mostly caused by: Large scale digitization; lack of special knowledge; the status value of academic titles; and low pay. The research findings make it possible to integrate courses on intellectual property and plagiarism into higher education, which will improve knowledge and high quality of education. There are also plans to introduce an online course in The Unified Anti-Plagiarism Principles in Higher Education for university students to improve knowledge and skills in dealing with aspects of plagiarism.

show abstract

Priority criteria in peer review of scientific articles

Cited by 5 publications

References 36 publications

Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: the case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation

Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: the case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation

Do extraordinary science and technology scientists balance their publishing and patenting activities?

Intellectual property and quality of education: Exploring the academic integrity among medical students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About