Discover the world's scientific knowledge
With 135+ million publication pages, 20+ million researchers and 1+ million questions, this is where everyone can access science
You can use AND, OR, NOT, "" and () to specify your search.
Most of the journals take a healthy amount of time in reviewing articles. And in majority of the cases this time taken is an unnecessary delay in the publication of the research. What can be the possible reasons ? Is it due to the fact that refrees are not paid? Or, is it only the case of articles submitted to free journals ?
A constructive overview is needed.
I recently published an article entitled "In search of the journalistic imagination".
Although it is not the mainstream in the field of journalism, I still wish to collect some constructive feedbacks which would light up future studies.
Please kindly write me feedbacks privately if you have any. Highly appreciated!!!
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
What you should do if you found that one of the reviewers goes through your paper just to reject it and most of his comments are irrational and not constructive. Finally, he rejected the paper without completing the review (and mentioned this in the comment), while the decision of other reviewer was a minor revision. The final decision of the journal was a major revision.
If I have completed a research paper and I intend to submit it for consideration by a journal or other academic periodical or research monograph, would it be normal procedure if I were to post my research paper on Research Gate with a view to maybe getting feedback, constructive criticism, review, or even a word of encouragement?
I am doing Ph.D. in ICT-eHealth and found JMIR as a leading journal in health informatics with a very good turn around time and a good impact factor (5.03). As per Norwegian DBH, it is high ranked (L2).
I have the following questions -
a. Is it a good option to publish papers here related to applied AI (ML, DL) in eHealth?
b. Is it a good option to publish papers related to algorithms, models with AI (ML, DL, Reinforcement learning, recommendation generation for DSS) in eHealth?
c. Publication in JMIR will add weightage in the CV for a postdoc or further research opportunities or JMIR is not as regarded as IEEE / Elsevier / BMC?
d. If I have 5-6 papers in JMIR at the Ph.D. level will it be bad or good?
Constructive responses are welcome.
The peer review of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals is currently a basic pillar used to ensure the quality of papers. Besides other problems that the model raises (challenges such as the fact that it is unpaid, without charge to the publishers, or the debate about its relative reliability), I am very concerned about if blind peer review really helps to achieve the desired goal of accuracy and integrity. In many occasions I have received reviews by anonymous reviewers that have been very honest, fair and adequate to the standards of my discipline (Archaeology); however, in a number of cases, I consider that the anonymity of the reviewers has only served to spit poison without consequences, like the anonymous trolls that abound on the internet nowadays, without any intention of helping to improve the manuscript or any desire to ensure that the process serves to maintain the quality of the publication. I am quite sure that many others have experienced this same type of reviews, which are far from the ethical standards that should be considered, and which often have to do with personal vendettas, rivalries, and frustrations that have nothing to do with what the Academy should be. This has happened with journals with a low impact index, but also with others ranked high in international indexes. I consider that peer-reviews should be signed by their authors in all cases, without the option (as is usual nowadays in most journals) of remaining anonymous. If the review should always aim to contribute to the improvement of papers from a constructive perspective, and therefore to the progress of scientific knowledge, there should be nothing to hide about the identity of the reviewers, don't you think?