JSCI Editorial Peer Reviewing Methodology
نویسنده
چکیده
The Peer Review Methodology Used in the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics is Based on three-tier reviews: open (or non-blind), double-blind, and participative reviews. Final acceptance depends of the three kinds of reviews but a paper should be recommended by nonblind reviewers AND blind reviewers in order to be accepted for publication. A recommendation to accept made by non-blind reviewers is a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient one. A submission, to be accepted, should also have a majority of its double-blind reviewers recommending its acceptance. This double necessary conditions generate a more reliable and rigorous review than a those reviewing processes based on just one of the indicated methods, or just on the traditional double-blind reviewing.
منابع مشابه
A Review on the Editorial Peer Review
Background and Objectives: The editorial peer review has an important role in the publication of scientific articles. Peers or reviewers are those scholars who have the expertise regarding the topic of a given article. They critically appraise the articles without having any monetary incentives or conflicts of interest. The aim of this study was to determine the most important aspects of the ed...
متن کاملPre-Planning of the Second phase of The Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and informatics, JSCI
Our purpose in this document is to inform about the objectives we have for the second phase of the The Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, JSCI (www.iiisci.org/Journal/sci), in order to get feedback as input for the final planning of the second phase of the journal. The main objectives of this second phase are the following: To increase the readership of JSCI. To broaden the ...
متن کاملReviewing in science requires quality criteria and professional reviewers.
The use of peers to assess the work of scientists goes back to the 17th century and finally led to what we call peer review (Kronick, 1990) or review by competitors (Roy and Ashburn, 2001). Usually peers are external experts not paid for their assessment. Recent studies of the effectiveness and quality of our current peer review system are not reassuring (Godlee and Jefferson, 1999; Jefferson e...
متن کاملA primer on reviewing and synthesizing evidence.
In this editorial, I shall describe methods commonly used for synthesizing evidence and review some contemporary examples of how this methodology has been applied to the peer-reviewed literature. It is my hope that the reader will find this interesting, but more importantly useful as you find yourself reading the evermore voluminous medical literature.
متن کاملPractical Suggestions for Improving Scholarly Peer Review Quality and Reducing Cycle Times
Scholarly peer review is both central to scientific progress and deeply flawed. Peer review is prejudiced, capricious, inefficient, ineffective, and generally unscientific. Management journals have longer review cycles than journals in other fields. Long cycle times demonstrably harm early-career researchers. Meanwhile, a lack of transparency conceals and facilitates editorial misconduct, and s...
متن کامل