ArticlePDF Available

Publishers and 'high quality' reviews -A statistical analysis

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The aim of this research is to present a study about how pleased are the authors who publish a scientific paper with their collaboration with the publisher. A sample of 350 authors reply to a questionnaire and a statistical analysis of the results has been carried out. In addition, the quality of the peer review has been checked by sending five papers to various publishers and evaluating the received reviews.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Publishers and ‘high quality’ reviews - A statistical analysis
XIAODONG ZHUANG
College of Electronics and Information, Qingdao University,
266071, Qingdao, CHINA
RANIA RUSHDY MOUSSA,
Architecture Department
Faculty of Engineering
British University in Egypt
EGYPT
GRZEGORZ ZIMON
Department of Finance, Banking and Accounting
Rzeszow University of Technology
Al. Powstancow Warszawy 12, Rzeszow 35-959
POLAND
DMITRY A. TARASOV
Ural Federal University
Institute of radio-engineering & IT
Department of IT & Automation
Mira 32 - R041
Ekaterinburg 620002
RUSSIA
YURIY DACHEV
Navigation Department, Nikola Vaptsarov Naval Academy 9000
Varna, 73, Vasil Drumev Str.
BULGARIA
Abstract: The aim of this research is to present a study about how pleased are the authors
who publish a scientific paper with their collaboration with the publisher. A sample of 350
authors reply to a questionnaire and a statistical analysis of the results has been carried out.
In addition, the quality of the peer review has been checked by sending five papers to
various publishers and evaluating the received reviews.
Keywords: Scientific journals, publishers, quality of publication, quality of journal, peer
review.
1. Introduction
Nowadays a lot of publishers promise quick publication in their scientific journals after a
rigorous peer review process. The papers are written mainly by academics and are reviewed
by experts in the field, who ensure the quality of the publication. The reviewers validate the
scientificity of the proposed methodology, the reliability of the quantitative and qualitative
results, the critical discussion of the results, and the reasonable conclusions. In addition, the
publishers promise that the submitted papers pass from plagiarism control and publish only
the papers with a low value of similarity index.
The quality of the peer review process reflects the scientific quality of the contents of the
journals. Peer review process consists of the following basic steps: a) pre-screening quality
control of the submitted papers to the journal, b) plagiarism control, c) the editors send the
paper to experts for peer review, d) experts send their reports to the editor, e) editor’s
decision (accepted, rejected, revision), f) if needs revision, paper returns to the authors for
corrections, g) the revised version of the paper is submitted to the editor, h) if needs, the
editor send the paper back to the reviewers, i) reviewers send their decision/comments to the
editors, j) final decision by the editor. The above-mentioned procedure ensures the
scientificity of the contents of the journals.
In this paper, a statistical analysis was carried out. Firstly, a sample of 350 authors answers
a questionnaire. The aim of this research is to determine how satisfied the authors are with
the publishers who have published their papers. Secondly, five scientific articles were sent to
various publishers and the quality of the received reviews was evaluated. In the conclusion
section, the main findings are summarized.
2. The questionnaire
Α questionnaire was designed for the needs of the research and delivered to 350 authors.
The research included the ten most well-known publishers: ΙΕΕΕ, Springer, Elsevier,
ActaPress, IARIA, WSEAS, MDPI, Hindawi, Scirp, Sage. This questionnaire includes the
following questions and the corresponding possible answers:
Q1. How easy is the uploading system?
i) Much less than I expected ii) Less than I expected iii) Just as I expected iv) More
than I expected v) Much more than I expected
Q2. Having had contact with the publisher, I can say that our communication was:
i) Highly dissatisfied ii) Dissatisfied iii) Undecided iv) Satisfied v) Highly satisfied
Q3. Do you believe that there is pre-screening quality control?
i) Strongly disagree ii) Somewhat disagree iii) Neutral iv) Somewhat agree v)
Strongly agree
Q4. Did you receive a plagiarism control file?
i) No ii) Yes
Q5. Did you receive a review?
i) No ii) Yes
Q6. If you received a review, after how many days did you receive it?
i) 1-10 days ii) 11-20 days iii) 21-30 days iv) 31-60 days v) >60 days
Q7. If you received a review, evaluate the quality of the review.
i) Poor ii) Below average iii) Moderate iv) Above average v) Exceptional
Q8. How thorough and helpful was the review?
i) Poor ii) Below average iii) Moderate iv) Above average v) Exceptional
Q9. The rejected rate of the journal is:
i) 0-20% ii) 20-40% iii) 40-60% iv) 60-80% v) >80%
Q10. Overall, how satisfied are you with the publisher?
i) Highly dissatisfied ii) Dissatisfied iii) Undecided iv) Satisfied v) Highly satisfied
Q11. Will you submit again a paper for possible publication in the publisher?
i) No ii) Yet not decided iii) Yes
3. The results of the poll – statistic analysis
The results of the questionnaire were quantified. The percent score for each question and for
each publisher is presented in Table 1. The mean value and the standard deviation are
calculated. In Figure 1, histograms represent the distribution of percentage data of each
publisher for each question of the questionnaire. The mean value of all questions for each
publisher is illustrated in Figure 2.
By ordering the bars from largest to smallest, the Pareto charts in Figure 3 aims to highlight
the most important factors of weakness for each publisher.
Table 1: The percent score for each question and for each publisher.
Publisher
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Mean
value
SD
1 ΙΕΕΕ 69.1 90.3 87.8 100 100 88.7 89.5 89.2 91.7 89.6 91.8 89.8 8.06
2 Elsevier 78.6 82.1 87.9 100 100 81.5 87.2 81.7 84.2 88.2 90.5 87.4 7.15
3 WSEAS 64.2 84.1 85.3 100 100 86.2 82.4 87.8 81.4 87.6 85.3 85.8 9.55
4 Springer 70.1 77.5 71.8 82.4 95.7 79.7 76.4 72.5 78.9 82.3 80.9 78.9 6.98
5 ActaPress 60.2 47.1 55.9 56.7 61.8 61.2 59.7 55.8 67.1 51.9 52.3 57.2 5.55
6 IARIA 41.5 45.9 41.5 72.8 83.4 69.4 51.2 45.8 52.8 40.2 63.7 55.3 14.75
7 MDPI 31.8 42.1 45.8 63.4 100 27.7 45.1 40.5 43.2 44.9 41.7 47.8 19.47
8 Hindawi 63.2 36.7 41.2 29.7 47.6 26.6 40.2 41.9 48.7 41.7 35.2 41.2 9.92
9 Scirp 71.6 31.2 29.4 17.9 23.5 15.8 32.9 35.4 34.1 33.7 31.3 32.4 14.58
10
Sage 69.8 28.7 29.1 15.1 18.7 14.7 31.3 29.7 27.9 28.4 28.6 29.3 14.75
Figure 1:
The percent score for each question and for each publisher.
Figure 2:
The results in percentage of each publisher.
The percent score for each question and for each publisher.
The results in percentage of each publisher.
The percent score for each question and for each publisher.
Figure
From this research, it is
observe
rating
, as their practice in publishing
known publish
ers, as WSEAS,
reviewing all the submitted papers
result,
the authors are satisfied
4. Quality of the reviews
In order to evaluate
the quality of the reviews, five papers submitted to each publisher. The
results are presented in Table 2.
Table
Publisher
Reviewers per
paper
1 ΙΕΕΕ
2 Elsevier
3 WSEAS
4 Springer
5 ActaPress
6 IARIA
7 MDPI
8 Hindawi
9 Scirp
10
Sage
Commenting on
the results of Table 2, only IEEE, Elsevier
papers to experts with deep knowledge of the subject for peer review.
reviewers’ comments really help the authors to optimize their work.
Figure
3: The pareto charts of the publishers.
observe
d that the well-known publish
ers (IEEE, Elsevier)
, as their practice in publishing
satisfies the authors.
However, there are not so well
ers, as WSEAS,
that meet all the criteria of the good p
ractice in publishing
reviewing all the submitted papers
and by
supporting the authors in their collaboration
the authors are satisfied
with WSEAS and
submit again their work to this publisher.
the quality of the reviews, five papers submitted to each publisher. The
results are presented in Table 2.
Table
2: The quality of the reviews.
Reviewers per
paper
Comments
Cognitive
l
evel
3 Very detailed
comments
Experts,
Deep knowledge of
the subject
4 Very detailed
comments
Experts,
Deep knowledge of
the subject
5 Very detailed
comments
Experts,
Deep knowledge of
the subject
3 Very detailed
comments
Experts,
Deep knowledge of
the subject
3 General
comments
Moderate knowledge
subject
3 General
comments
Moderate knowledge
subject
3 A few general
comments
T
hey were not aware of the
subject
3 A few general
comments
T
hey were not aware of
subject
2 A few general
comments
T
hey were not aware of the
subject
2 A few general
comments
T
hey were not aware of the
subject
the results of Table 2, only IEEE, Elsevier
, WSEAS
and Springer
papers to experts with deep knowledge of the subject for peer review.
reviewers’ comments really help the authors to optimize their work.
ers (IEEE, Elsevier)
get a high
However, there are not so well
-
ractice in publishing
by
supporting the authors in their collaboration
. As a
submit again their work to this publisher.
the quality of the reviews, five papers submitted to each publisher. The
evel
of reviewers
Deep knowledge of
the subject
Deep knowledge of
the subject
Deep knowledge of
the subject
Deep knowledge of
the subject
Moderate knowledge
of the
subject
Moderate knowledge
of the
subject
hey were not aware of the
subject
hey were not aware of
the
subject
hey were not aware of the
subject
hey were not aware of the
subject
and Springer
send the
papers to experts with deep knowledge of the subject for peer review.
In this case, the
Conclusions
In this paper, a research was carried out in order to evaluate how pleased are the authors,
who publish a scientific paper, from the publisher. In addition, the quality of the reviews is
evaluated. The results show that the authors are strongly satisfied from the well-known
publishers (IEEE, Elsevier). Also, publishers as WSEAS meet all the criteria of the good
practice in publishing and the authors will submit again a paper for possible publication in
WSEAS.
References
[1] Nikos Bardis, Lambros Ekonomou, Pierre Borne, Klimis Ntalianis, Paolo Mercorelli,
Michael N Katehakis, Nikos Kintzios, Cornelia Aida Bulucea and Maria Isabella Garcia
Planas, "Business and Economics: Metrics and Peer Review in the journal: WSEAS
Transactions on Business and Economics", Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1564
(2020) 012025 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1564/1/012025, pp.1-4
[2] Matthew E Falagas, Eleni I Pitsouni, George A Malietzis, Georgios Pappas, Comparison
of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses, The
FASEB Journal , Life Sciences Forum, John Wiley and Sons, pp338-342
[3] Banks, M. A. The excitement of Google Scholar, the worry of Google Print. Biomed. Digit.
Libr. 2005 Mar 22;2:2
[4] Tang. H., and Ng, J. H. (2006) Googling for a diagnosis—use of Google as a diagnostic
aid: Internet based study. BMJ 333, 1143–1145
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
The Conference MMCTSE 2020 was in collaboration with the Journal “WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics”. In this paper, the Metrics, the Peer Review and some statistical results of this Journal: “WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics” is outlined.
Article
Full-text available
In late 2004 Google announced two major projects, the unveiling of Google Scholar and a major expansion of the Google Print digitization program. Both projects have generated discussion within the library and research communities, and Google Print has received significant media attention. This commentary describes exciting educational possibilities stimulated by Google Scholar, and argues for caution regarding the Google Print project.
Article
Full-text available
To determine how often searching with Google (the most popular search engine on the world wide web) leads doctors to the correct diagnosis. Internet based study using Google to search for diagnoses; researchers were blind to the correct diagnoses. One year's (2005) diagnostic cases published in the case records of the New England Journal of Medicine. 26 cases from the New England Journal of Medicine; management cases were excluded. Percentage of correct diagnoses from Google searches (compared with the diagnoses as published in the New England Journal of Medicine). Google searches revealed the correct diagnosis in 15 (58%, 95% confidence interval 38% to 77%) cases. As internet access becomes more readily available in outpatient clinics and hospital wards, the web is rapidly becoming an important clinical tool for doctors. The use of web based searching may help doctors to diagnose difficult cases.