Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts

The consistency of peer-reviewers: Assessment of separate parts of the manuscripts vs final recommendations

Delving into the review reports, this paper is aimed at analyzing reviewers` attitudes toward different sections of the manuscripts they review. The research focuses on the consistency of reviewers` evaluation through analysis of their assessment of separate parts of a paper, if it corresponds with the recommendations they made to the editors and whether a paper needs revision or should be accepted/rejected. It is assumed that the assessment of separate parts of a paper should be consistent with the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. Based on the analysis presented in this paper it can be concluded that the assessments of separate parts of articles in the evaluation sheets do not fully reflect the final recommendations of the reviewers. The results showed that the most correlated and therefore the most significant sections for the reviewers are the main text and the conclusions. The conditional probability analysis showed that the decision of reviewers, when number of points in the evaluation sheet is taken into consideration, is slightly unpredictable. No significant differences in the reviewers` recommendations based on gender or country of origin of the reviewers were found.

Tips and guidelines for being a good peer reviewer

Publication is the key means by which science spreads. The purpose of scientific journals is to publish novel and quality articles. The editors of the journals evaluate the content of the manuscripts by submitting them to a process called «peer review», considered today the gold standard to guarantee the adequate publication of scientific articles. A well-crafted and critical peer-review report is a treasure for both authors and editors. In the present manuscript we will examine the key aspects of the peer review process. We will begin by explaining what exactly this process consists of and since when it has existed, and then clarifying why it is so important. Then we will argue why we should want to be reviewers of scientific papers. We will then review what are the fundamental rules to carry out a good review of a manuscript and what aspects of it we should focus on. Later we will see what format a peer review report should have and how to write its different sections, as well as the options for its final resolution. We will pay special attention to commenting on the ethical aspects and the most frequent errors that are made in the evaluation of manuscripts. Finally, we will recognize what the fundamental limitations of peer review are, and we will end by proposing some suggestions for their improvement. Our ultimate goal is to stimulate researchers -and authors- to go one step further and undertake the challenge of being peer reviewers of scientific manuscripts.

The Sensitivity of Research on COVID-19

Beall’s list heavily used as a base for selection of predatory journals by large no. of research studies was ceased from internet in 2017. Thus, status of journal declared as predatory in list is debatable. To verify quality of journals in terms of accuracy and standard of peer review, a sample of Medical Science journals from Beall list and indexed in reputed indexing/abstracting databases was taken. sample of journals was put to quality and credibility check by submitting a deliberately flawed research article. deliberate errors exceed an acceptable norm in submitted research paper. It is astonishing to see that majority of journals (61.96%) accept flawed article on such a sensitive issue, i.e., COVID-19 without peer review and desired revisions. Instant mails reporting paper's acceptance, preceded by multiple emails requesting for submission for Article processing fee, were received frequently. It is found that such publishing ventures are a scare story that only wants to generate as much revenue as possible.

Conflicts of Interest Arising from Simultaneous Service by Editors of Competing Journals or Publishers

In this day and age of challenging post-publication peer review and heightened academic scrutiny, editors serve an increasingly important role in screening submissions and managing the quality of information that is published in scholarly journals. Publishers compete for an intellectual market while commercial publishers compete for a commercial share of the market. The assumption argued in this perspective is that having editorial positions in competing journals or publishers (CJPs) may represent competing intellectual, professional and/or financial interests. Thus, based on this assumption, an editor would be expected to show loyalty to a single entity (journal or publisher). Editorial positions on the editorial boards of CJPs, as well as conflicts, financial or other, should be clearly indicated for all editors on the editorial board page of a journal’s website, for transparency. In science and academia, based on these arguments, the author is of the belief that editors should thus generally not serve on the editorial boards of CJPs, or only under limited and fully transparent conditions, even if they serve as editors voluntarily. The author recognizes that not all academics, including editors, might agree with this perspective, so a wider debate is encouraged.

Perspective on Systematic Medical Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PURPOSE

This study sought to identify factors contributing to the inadequacies of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) published in the ophthalmology literature.

DESIGN

Perspective.

METHODS

Review and synthesis of selective literature, with interpretation and perspective.

RESULTS

Although recommendations for the design, conduct, assessment of quality, and risk of bias of systematic reviews have been widely available, some recent publications illustrate a serious potential failing in this domain: inclusion of refuted science, lack of citation of post-publication correspondence and failure to use ≥1 alternative search strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Examples of inadequacies of peer review in medical literature and perpetuation of erroneous science by unfiltered inclusion in subsequent systematic reviews have been identified, and the problem can be traced to authors, peer reviewers, and editors of journals. This perspective identifies and analyzes several possible causes of the problem and recommends some specific corrective actions to improve the quality and accuracy of such reviews.

Open Science Badges in the Journal of Neurochemistry

The Open Science Framework (OSF) has the mission to increase openness, integrity, and reproducibility in research. The Journal of Neurochemistry became a signatory of their Transparency and Openness guidelines in 2016, which provides eight modular standards (Citation standards, Data Transparency, Analytic Methods/Code Transparency, Research Materials Transparency, Design and Analysis Transparency, Study Pre-registration, Analysis Plan Transparency, Replication) with increasing levels of stringency. Furthermore, OSF recommends and offers a collection of practices intended to make scientific processes and results more transparent and available in a standardized way for reuse to people outside the research team. It includes making research materials, data, and laboratory procedures freely accessible online to anyone. This editorial announces the decision of the Journal of Neurochemistry to introduce Open Science Badges, maintained by the Open Science Badges Committee and by the Center for Open Science (COS). The Open Science Badges, visual icons placed on publications, certify that an open practice was followed and signal to readers that an author has shared the corresponding research evidence, thus, allowing an independent researcher to understand how to reproduce the procedure.