Questions related to Auditing
Hi everyone, asking for a colleague here
they recieved an accept from an editor and a very small request to to revise something
once they did that and submitted the article fell with another editor who rejected it outright
the paper was with this journal for 6.5 months.
any idea how to proceed with an appeal for a springer journal?
I have been trying to login to submission site of Journal of General Management. Despite entering the correct login credentials I am not able to get through.
I tried resetting the password, however to no avail.
Is anybody facing similar problem or have encountered this issue in the past?
If yes, kindly help me.
I want to include the M062X functional instead of B3LYP. But, in my Gaussian it is not available. How, to include or add it in Gaussian?
The revised version underwent a pilot survey followed by a reliability test after a validation process employing face and content validity. Cronbach's Alpha is one of the options for measuring the reliability of a scale for a tool like a Likert Scale. What about a tool with questions/items on a nominal scale?
I had a major revision paper in Q2 journal and it was holding with the editor. Please, how can I resolve this issue?
I tried to send to them several emails without any reply. Please, how can I resolve the issue raise by them?
I wonder if I should wait for acknowledgement from the journal and comment from the reviewer or editor or just resend my revision?
Once revision is completed and acceptance recommendation is given by Academic editor at Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine (Hindawi), the status pending approval took one month and fifteen days. When I wrote to the journals, they told me that the manuscript is currently being reviewed by in-house staff. What does this emply?
I have submitted paper in one of hindawi's journal. I have completed all revision. The academic editor made his recommendation. The status under pending approval took one month. Why so late? Why happen like this.
I submitted a paper (meta-analysi) to a journal and it was sent for peer review the next day. After 6 weeks I got a decision to reject it though the editor-in-chief acknowledged that the peer review was positive!! in fact the two peer reviewers had only minor comments that should have led to minor revision rather than rejectio. the EIC justified the decision by stating the paper did not fall within the scope of the journal (yes; after been sent for peer review) and that they had more important papers to publish, and that they would not accept a revision of the manuscript. They did not reply to my email I sent to express my discontent and frustration. Is there any explanation other than conspiracy?
I am looking for a co-author and I wondering if you may be interested. The article was accepted in September 2021 for publication after peer review, but I don't have too much time to complete the process. Title of the Manuscript: Russia, Armed Groups and the Central African conflict African Journal of Political Science and International Relations Manuscript Number AJPSIR/10.09.21/1368 Current Status: First Revision Reminder
I revised a scale. 103 filled the scale. The internal consistency reliability score of the two sub-scales are 0.70 and 0.74. However, the internal consistency reliability of the total score is only 0.45.
Should I collect more data? Or, does it mean the two subscales are independent and it is not appropriate to calculate the total score?
I am using the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the validity of a revised scale.
Seventy-five students filled the scale 4 times (day1, day2, day3, day4). May I analyze the total 75 * 4 scale data? If not, which one is better? Data in the first time?
I've been looking for recent regulations and matters that are linked to auditing to discuss for my research thesis. I could really use any suggestion regarding auditing, audit market, audit trends...
i. Although the suggested correction was very less raised by the 2 reviewers in their 2nd revision, why does the editor asked for major revision?
ii. Why does the editor has given me clues to solve each of the raised questions? Does it mean the learned editor is going to accepting my paper after updating the manuscript based on given suggestions by the reviewers?
“Early auditing theories were constructed by observing the practices of auditors”. Explain what type of theory construction is this? List the advantages and disadvantages of this approach.
We had submitted a manuscript on 25 Apr 2020 (please see the attachment 1) titled “Assessing the impact of Pakistani females' religious beliefs on sports by using Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire” to the Journal of Religion & Health for possible publication. Within time spend of 2 years we got not less than 7 revisions (please see the attachment 1) on different time and almost different comments every time. After almost 2nd revision we used MDPI service and spent 1600 CHF (please see attachment 5) for language correction. The latest comments sent by the editor were some statistical changings and recommendation of grammatical review (please see attachments 2 and 3). We used their recommended service and spent almost US$345 (please see attachment 4).
We submitted our last revision on Jan-2022 and waiting for the possibly acceptance email for 3 months (because last revision was just about the language and some minor changings in statistical analysis). And today we just got the rejection (please see the attachment 1) email from the Editor-in-Chief Journal of Religion and Health.
Though the outcome of the process is very disappointing because we used a lot of time, energy and money on the demand of journal, I would like to know from you scholars if there is any academic way to response such kind of journals? It’s not about only our paper, but this effort can also save the time and energy (may be money) of other scholars like you.
I really appreciate your understanding and suggestions.
Hubei Normal University, China.
Hi everyone, I'm making an index that requires the use of protected area categories to be ranked in terms of their abilities to protect threatened species.
The categories are:
- Category Ia: Strict Nature Reserve.
- Category Ib: Wilderness Area.
- Category II: National Park.
- Category III: Natural Monument or Feature.
- Category IV: Habitat/Species Management Area.
- Category V: Protected Landscape/Seascape.
- Category VI: Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources.
In terms of actual biodiversity conservation the order of these categories seems to be a bit arbitrary. How would you rank the IUCN Protected Area Categories from highest to lowest protection for threatened species? I have searched numerous sources and all of them seem to have had the same complaint, and suggest the categories should be revised, but don't actually provide any recommendations on the proper order.
Any help appreciated!
I’ve been asked to revise a chapter in a textbook. The chapter was written by another author. In revision, is it acceptable to retain any of the original author‘s exact work, or does it need to be completely rewritten in original language? I’ve only revised my own chapters before, and no one seems to know how this is properly handled.
I intend to use the composite variable in regression analysis. I want to develop a composite variable using three variables. One of them is a dummy variable, one variable has values ranging from 0 to 50, and one variable has quite large values.
The study is in the field of accounting and economics.
I really appreciate your valuable insights.
What can be objectively defined as measurable and auditable standard
1 Question is justifiable and essential Xray chest requests in children less than 3years presenting to Emergency department expressed as a percentage?
Dear All scientists,
From last few decades the geoscientific research is growing and probably have high impact of the society. we have highlighted every aspects of the earth science. We as a nation, never gives any values to our geodiversity of Pakistan. The science of geoconservation is emerging and novel. If we look into some real figures of the world, the number of geological sites in the Global UNESCO Geoparks Network is brought to 169 in 44 countries. All sites are highly funded for research and protection.
Unfortunately, despite of high research in Geology, Pakistan is not included in the list compared with even under developed countries, although we had have very interesting geological sites that need conversation and global ranking.
Recently, PM Pakistan inaugurate heritage trail in Salt Range national parks, this is inline with our recent finding on the geoheritage of Salt range. I am attaching the publication. We identified and ranked the Salt Range Geosite based on the new methods of geoheritage. This is really great initiative for geoturism in Pakistan. The geoscientist can promote the real geoturism by identifying the site of geological importance.
Currently, I am working on the very important and least studied geological aspect of Hingol National Park. Our Paper is in the second revision, still need very interesting things to be included. If any one have idea or similar research interest we need to collaborates inn this regard to highlights this important geosite in Pakistan. My official email is Yaseengeo@awkum.edu.pk.
Any suggestion or input will be highly acknowledged.
Thank you for your cooperation.
- Reviewer1 Review Report(round1) (Reconsider after major revision(control missing in some experiments)
- Reviewer2 Review Report(round1) (Reconsider after major revision(control missing in some experiments)
- Reviewer3 Review Report(round1) (Reconsider after major revision(control missing in some experiments)
- Reviewer4 Review Report(round1) (Reconsider after major revision(control missing in some experiments)
- Reviewer6 Review Report(round1) (Reconsider after major revision(control missing in some experiments)------------------The above is the conclusion of the preliminary review of an article. The same six reviewers are judging the fate of a PhD. I don't know how he is feeling?
I have a paper that recommended minor revision, and the reviewers ask me to provide the control variable for my model. But I don’t have the model's data anymore, so I cant add control variables to my result. What can I respond to this issues reviewers comments? Any idea? Any good logical response?
I would love to hear your reactions to the following assertion:
The open science movement has some potential to reduce scientific misconduct.
Pre-registration might help some. Making research data more publicly available might help some. Any of the open science initiatives might help to some degree. But the problem of scientific misconduct is not going to be eliminated or even substantially reduced until the most powerful incentives supporting the behavior – including tenure, promotion, and grants – are revised to promote integrity as well as productivity.
I am in an incredibly bizarre situation. I will not mention the names of people I communicated with, but I will mention the publisher and the journal because I feel like I am experiencing a lame scam.
Earlier this year, I submitted my article to a journal called the International Journal of Virtual and Augmented Reality (IJVAR), and the publisher is IGI Global.
I communicated with someone from the journal but didn't receive any response after two weeks. I tried to view my submission on the IGI Global website, and it has a technical issue, in which it shows from a drop-down-menu that I have (1) article; however, when I click on it, the page displays a message that I do not have any submitted articles.
After a month, I sent an email to withdraw my submission because there was no communication and due to the website's issue.
After another month, an editor from the journal reached out to me to say that he is interested in my article and will begin the revision process. I told him that I had requested to withdraw my submission, and he accepted it and said that he is a new editor who is still figuring things out. It is important to emphasize that I finally got a response after I sent an email, and it turns out that I was emailing a journal that was going through a change of editors. Nobody from that journal nor any employee from IGI Global was responding to my emails.
In October, the same editor sent me an email telling me to work on revising my article that's on IGI's website. I sent an email reminding him that I had already informed him that he had accepted my withdrawal. But I did not receive anything back, and I feel that it is much easier to communicate with ghosts and summon spirits than communicating with anyone from IGI.
Now, I just received an email from the Development Editor for IGI Global congratulating me that my article got accepted and that I need to work on the revisions and make the final edits before 28 December. I was not even able to view my article, let alone edit it! I sent a response email but didn't hear back. I emailed IGI's editors' email address and heard nothing from them. Could it be they're ignoring my response emails to forcefully publish my article? Such a ridiculous mess.
Yesterday, I received a response of one mine paper with the concept of "major revisions". The paper is about engineering education and m-learning (a methodology). There are 20 points that the reviewers indicate me, some of them are basically impossible to address because are focused on the methodology that was made. Even for the paper that is a methodology, they indicate me to make a review as a "systematic literature review" employing PRISMA criteria and stuff like that.
PD: The paper was presented of a Q1 journal of education (Springer).
So, my questions are: How to deal with major revisions in a paper?, How to address the comments of the reviewers?, and How to make the revisions of the paper consistenly?
Thanks in advance for your help.
In one of Springer's journals, I have responded to a major revision. Since that I'm keenly tracking the progress of my manuscript. About every 10 days or two weeks, the revise date is changing, however, the manuscript status hasn't changed "Under review" I am waiting for 4 months. And I think it is very very long time. What should I do in this case. By the way the first decision was after 45 days.
Looking eagerly for your contribution.
I am looking for a native English speaker to edit my revised manuscript. it is my pleasure to have him/her as co-authors.
In major revision for publication of my paper, one of the points is " Identify the factors that make the accuracy reach 100% for both datasets. How to explain these points in the discussion. Kindly guide me.
Scopus releases the list of scopus indexed journals periodically. Whether do the Scopus revise every year or twice in a year?
Which month do they revise exactly?
Whether the revised list appear in the Scopus home site immediately or not?
Now almost all big publishing houses have started Open or Gold access schemes where we, the scientific authors, need to pay thousands of USD or EUROs or GBPs as article processing charges (APC). So, the authors are the consumers of the journals or publishing houses paying for their impact factors.
The publishing houses have employed non-technical or non-subject specific editorial support staff for checking articles' physical issues, not contents.
We all are facing a delay-dealing process by these staff before the actual scientific review start.
I/we can share some of my/our experiences:
Case-1. One journal has returned our article after five days of submission. We had uploaded two figures. Figure-1 was PRISMA and figure-2 was results derived from the study. Under the online submission declaration section, it asked to upload PRISMA (we marked as figure 1 with legend PRISMA). We did that. Under the figure category, we uploaded figure 2. We could not upload figure 1 again as it was already uploaded under the declaration section, which was mandatory to upload. We had a legend in manuscript figure 1 with PRISMA. We have also mentioned in the letter stating the problem.
The cause of return was figure 1 missing. The person who read it could not even distinguish by figure legends.
Case 2. One journal has returned our article before sending it to the editor/ reviewers. The reason was that by mistake, we wrote 'conclusion' instead of 'conclusions'.
Case 3. One journal from has returned our article after almost four weeks. The cause? Why did we add ethical issues under the method section and again under the declaration section? However, it asked to add ethical permission under the declaration. We have detailed descriptions of ethical issues under the method section.
Cases can go on and on.
In all cases, these minor technical issues could be easily fixed after the reviewer's comments during the revision of the manuscript.
The scientists plan for research projects, apply for funding, including APC charges, conduct research, write articles, and submit to journals for publication and publishing by paying the APC. As the consumer, I am losing time for this silly problem that we can quickly fix during the revision of the manuscript. We shall we be always at the receiving end? Why do the publishing houses exploit us even through these silly issues and delay-dealing process?
I am new to molecular dynamics. I am currently using the Material Studio to prepare the data file and then convert the car.file into a LAMMPS data file.
But when I use the amorphous cell, some molecules are actually across the boundary of the cell.
I want to confine the molecules inside the cell boundary.
Or I want to know how to make the cell bigger.
I know I can add a vacuum or revise the length of the cell but that only add space for one side.
Appreciation for any response
I sent a paper to Journal of Cleaner Production and finally got minor revision after 6months. there were two reviewers, reviewer#1 said `The authors have made all the modifications indicated. Therefore, I believe that the article can be accepted.` while reviewer#2 `The authors considered the Reviewer comments very good, ending in a good submission which is very helpful for other authors.` Also got several minor comments and resubmitted the paper anticipating the acceptance. after a month i got major revision (I was surprised). The reason is that reviewer#2 refers back to the same old comments that he gave at the major revision stage (He just copied and pasted alll the comments mentioned in the major revision stage) saying `I do not see that you considered my comments, please review them and finalize the document` . As I believe that there is a confusion regarding the decision and comments from reviewer#2, we have contacted the journal and waiting for a reply (it is almost a week as of 12th October 2021). any Ideas on this matter, what should i do next if a reply doesn't show up? It would be extremely helpful if you could share your experience, if avail.
I submitted one of the research papers of mine in a journal by Emrald last year in August 2020. Till now I have done two revisions and last revision was submitted in April 2021. I have been waiting since then for the decision by editors and it has been a long and a demotivating process since then. I have published two more papers between time period But, regarding this paper there is no communication from the editors. I finally decided to ask them and they said we are reviewing the revisions. Its been more than 1 year. What should I do in this case? Should I withdraw it instead?
After a new taxonomy revision or new classification has been peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal, is it necessary for the taxonomic status of the species recognized in the article to be re-evaluated by the IUCN? Is the scope of the IUCN to review and assess taxonomy of species?
We, as authors, are expected to follow certain ethical codes laid down by journals. For instance, authors can not submit the same article in more than one journal.
On the other hand, there are hardly any ethics for journals and editors. Journals rarely make the first decision within the ‘average’ first decision period mentioned in the journal's guidelines. Similarly, some manuscripts remain under review for more than a year at times, and journals reject an article after keeping it under review for such long times. By the time such decision is made, the article already loses its relevance.
I want to stress that a line of ethics shall be drawn for journals and editors as well.
1. There must be a maximum time limit for making the first decision and also for review. Two weeks are enough for making the first decision; the editor must go through the article and make the first decision in this period (If an article has some worth, send it to review else desk reject it). For peer reviews, I understand that getting peer reviews is a timely process, but there still must be an upper limit.
2. I have experienced that revisions are often sent to new reviewers who suggest additional new changes and sometimes recommend rejection also. Revisions should be sent to original reviewers, and in case original reviewers are not available, then the editor must make the decision on the basis of revisions recommended by the original reviewers and the changes made by the authors.
There may be other points also that fellow Research Gate members may highlight.
In my opinion, until journals do not follow such ethics, I do not see any harm in sending the same manuscript for consideration to multiple journals. A very delayed rejection decision renders the manuscript useless. Why should authors be hard done by? The journals and editors do have some ethics to follow too.
1) evidence of at least a publication in a high-impact Journal indexed in Scopus or ABS or ABDC. This is to certify writing, grammatical and analytical skills.and/or
2) Strong statistical background in factorial analysis or research methodology in social sciences.
I have been in auditing profession since 1990 and supervised fifty final year undergraduate accounting /auditing research projects.
For the next level, reach me here or firstname.lastname@example.org
About two years ago, I have submitted a manuscript to a reputed journal. After a couple of months of the peer review process, the response was “major revision has been requested”. I made the necessary adjustments and resubmitted it again. The Journal's editor responded that my manuscript requires minor revision. Well, the decision was <<"Revise for Editor Only'' he claimed that revision should be quick and it will not undergo the entire review process>>. Again, I made the required edits in order to make the manuscript acceptable for publication. Afterward, I resubmitted it. It is the day 120 and the status is "With Editor". In fact, I did send two emails to the editorial team to update the status. Their response to both emails was the same, saying that they contacted the editor to accelerate the process.
Dear readers, I need to have a piece of advice: what to do as a next step?
Thank you in advance,
Union Cabinet has approved the revised new definition of the MSME. The MSMEs have been redefined on the basis of investment limit and turnover size. Earlier only investment in plant and machinery was considered for defining MSMEs. How this change in definition criteria going to help MSMEs grow in India?
i am looking for a new and interesting topic for my new research. Please. if you have any i will much appreciate that. Thank you in advance
The economic development that the world is witnessing and the resulting environmental and economic damage to health and the environment and health, pay us to put the shapes below:
Dear RG community,
Because I'm currently working on a paper that should be finished soon, I would like to know what approximately is the average/maximum number of words for a scientific article in the field of financial accounting e.g. for journals as the Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance or the jounal of Accounting and Business Research.
Thank you for your information.
An intent to understand, evaluate and assess the academic curriculum module of Building Services in relation to the Architecture Profession. We have witnessed to be following a Course Curriculum that has seen minimal revisions and upgradations. The Academic Curriculum is approx. 25-30 Years. It is in subsequent demand of revisions with Updates Trends and Techniques to have an efficient Building Metabolism. And, these questionnaires will help in bringing us an inch closer to integrate the curriculum with trending practices.
I am revising a manuscript I submitted to a reputable journal with nice impact factor. I came to realise that two of the reviewers have opposing recommendations.
What do you suggest I do or how do I respond to those recommendations from peer reviewers?
My paper revision is in progress. However, now I know that another author as the corresponding author must be added to the manuscript. But I can,t know how I can add another new author as correspond at this phase of paper preparation. Can anyone help me with this issue?
I submitted a manuscript to a journal using scholarone manuscript system, and later got a decision of major revision. After making revisions according to the reviewers' comments, I submitted the revised manuscript a few days ago. Initially the status was "awaiting admin checklist", and then changed to "under review". Today, I noticed that the status was then changed to "awaiting reviewer assignment".
I assume the revised MS would automatically go to the same AE and reviewers. Does this mean that the previous reviewers have declined to look at my responses? If they opt out, does it mean my article needs to go through another new round of review?
I want to use the revised Math Anxiety Rating Scale questionnaire for a study for my masters thesis but am unsure how to access it. Who do I contact?
I hope you are doing great during these difficult times.
I submitted an article in July of last year and got major revisions. It is more than five months since then, and I have not received a response from the journal. Have you also experienced something similar while working with journals? Even after the initial review, is it customary for journals to delay the review process this long?
I submitted my research article to T&F journal. After two revisions, the paper went under review. Now the review status changed to "Awaiting RE Decision" . What does it mean??
I joint the photonic west in 2021 and my manuscript was published and now can be found on SPIE digital library. Can I publish the manuscript on nature communication or other journals? will they consider it as dual publication? Thanks.
After submitting the 1 or 2 revisions also many of the Editors will reject the manuscripts without having a valid reason. If the author has submitted the revisions for reviewer-1 and reviewer-2, what is the necessity to review the article by the 3rd reviewer? How the Editor will make a decision only on the basis of 3rd reviewer comments? If the submitted revisions are not up to the mark, then there is a scope for the reviewer-1 and reviewer-2 to ask for one more revision or suggest to reject the article.
Still, this kind of problem is facing the authors.
I am looking for the Child version of ICG to update my French book on Grief and prolonged grief.
- Describe and explain in a paragraph what is a descriptive pragmatic approach and psychological pragmatic approach.
- Explain what syntactic and semantic theories are. Is syntactic and semantic theories are more Positive Accounting Theory or Normative Accounting Theory?
- Explain the question below less than two paragraphs as to why?
“Early auditing theories were constructed by observing the practices of auditors”. Explain what type of theory construction is this? List the advantages and disadvantages of this approach.
Editor of a journal asked for "Major Revision" for a submitted paper, after submitting revised paper it went for the review, after that the status shows "with Editor" for some time. Now, again it went for review. That is it went for review twice. What does it indicate? Does this mean eventual rejection? Any comments and suggestions regarding this would be helpful.
I have a very big molecule and I want to optimize the molecule with two dihedral angles being optimized within a certain range. I am using opt=modredundant method in Gaussian 16, Revision B.01.
After some search, I have used the input command as follows:
# opt=modredundant cam-b3lyp/genecp scrf=(iefpcm,solvent=dichloromethane) geom=connectivity scf=(xqc,maxcycle=1200)
392 393 1.0 394 1.0
* 103 220 *
91 103 220 208 F -0.5 -2.0
* 23 300 *
11 23 300 288 F -0.5 -2.0
C H N O 0
But this method did not work out. It shows the error mentioned below:
The following ModRedundant input section has been read:
D * 103 220 * B
Wanted an end-of-line for input.
Found a floating point number as input.
91 103 220 208 F -0.5 -2.0
Error termination via Lnk1e in /opt/Gaussian/g16_expt/g16/l101.exe
Please suggest me how to optimize my molecule by restraining the desired dihedral angles to be optimized within the mentioned range.
Esta parece ser una pregunta sencilla que debería tener una respuesta única y categórica. En teoría, los datos moleculares disponibilizados por otros autores en el GenBank son de LIBRE acceso y de acuerdo a esto, pueden ser utilizados por otros investigadores en nuevos estudios. Algo parecido ocurre con el material biológico (partes de individuos o individuos completos) que es colectado y depositado por un investigador y que posteriormente es utilizado por otros investigadores en nuevos estudios. Este podría ser el raciocinio lógico para cualquier editor que recibe un documento que incluye un análisis filogenético realizado con datos del GenBank. Sin embargo, parece ser que no siempre los editores están de acuerdo con el libre uso de datos moleculares depositados en GenBank. Expongo el siguiente caso:
En primera instancia sometimos para revisión uno de mis artículos a una conocida revista de Biodiversidad Marina. Este trabajo fue el fruto de un extenso proceso de colaboración científica entre colegas del área de la carcinología de varios países que se extendió por más de 4 años, y que incluyó extensos viajes de colecta por toda la costa del Atlántico Sur Occidental junto con la revisión de vastos lotes de organismos depositados en museos dentro y fuera de Brasil.
En sí, en el trabajo propusimos la separación de las poblaciones de un camarón de la costa de Brasil de la gran población de esta misma especie del Atlántico Occidental con la propuesta de una nueva especie para la ciencia más otros detalles taxonómicos. Para darle un fortalecimiento a nuestos datos morfológicos, reanalizamos la información molecular depositada en GenBank por otros autores. Luego de algunos días, un conocido investigador experto en 'squat lobsters' que actuó como editor invitado, nos escribió rechazando el artículo con el argumento de que habíamos cometido una falta ética al utilizar los datos moleculares disponibilizados en GenBank por otro grupo de investigación. Al pedir explicaciones al editor, este defendió la postura del revisor anónimo diciendo que era un problema que nosotros debíamos resolver.
En un segundo intento, el editor de otra revista dentro de Brasil señaló que el análisis molecular era similar al de otro autor y que por lo tanto, el trabajo era rechazado editorialmente. Este editor no se identificó y no permitió ninguna respuesta. Tampoco consideró que la parte molecular de nuestro trabajo apenas representaba el 10% de un trabajo que consideró lotes provenientes de un amplió rango geográfico.
Este relato representa un caso en el que los editores de dos diferentes revistas tienen una idea completamente diferente de lo que debería ser el libre uso de datos moleculares disponibles en GenBank. A todas luces, este parece ser un buen ejemplo de como dos diferentes editores hacen una defensa corporativa del trabajo realizado por investigadores con los cuales mantienen un nexo de amistad. Es decir, en este caso, si los autores de los datos moleculares no fueron capaces de encontrar las diferencias morfológicas que respaldasen sus datos moleculares, nadie más que no sea de su círculo cercano puede publicar el hallazgo de esta nueva especie. La camorra italiana tiene buenos ejemplos dentro de nuestra querida ciencia......
Does anyone know how to score the self-regulated online learning questionnaire (Jansen et al)?
Any help or links to study which have used it would be much appreciated!
This is the 2016 version, not the revised 2018 version.
I came across a recent taxonomic work, where two genera were synonymized. Both genera were published in a paper in 1922 by the original author who revised the family at that time. The original author described genus X on page 169 and described genus Y on page 176. In the above new taxonomic work, genus X is handled as a junior synonym of genus Y.
Does the principle of priority (ICZN 23.1) apply in this case as well, i.e. should genus Y be the junior synonym of genus X and not vice versa? Or do we have some exceptions here?
A note: both genera were used up till recently and contained about the same number of species.
I'd like to know whether I'm being just too sensitive or the situation is really messed up by the editor-in-chief. Here's the timeline about what has happened. Journal name : 'Journal X'
1) Journal X send me to ask if I can join as a reviewer of a review paper.
2) I sent my comment back to the editor. I liked the paper which contains a novel conceptualization, but I thought their logic was a bit weak containing several jumps so that 'major revision' was my decision. (Major one for a review paper. I guess this level of revision would be minor for original research.)
3) Within a month later, the editor-in-chief just sent me a decision letter. : 'Accepted'
4) Then I checked the online board of Journal X, and I only could see the authors' responses. However, I couldn't access the revised manuscript by the system, and the status was 'completed', not 'on-going.'
5) I sent the inquiry to the editorial office through the online board messaging system, and I got a letter from the assistant in editorial office that said 'I forwarded this message to the editor-in-chief.'
6) But there was no reply for a week, so I sent out the same inquiry again.
7) Without revealing his/her name, the editorial office reply me, the letter contains, 'sorry for the misunderstanding.'
8) I sent again the more clarified message.
9) No news for more than a week.
<My point of view>
1. Although the authors' answer was perfect enough, accepting a manuscript without asking agreement from the original reviewers who gave the comments about the manuscript was inappropriate action from the editor-in-chief. As a defender of a better peer review process for our scientific community, I consider this situation as a serious misconduct from the editor-in-chief (even if it was a fair mistake.)
2. The online board system was limited to access the revised manuscript.
3. The response from the editorial office was completely wrong. I think this didn't happen by the mutual responsibility. But the editorial office said 'misunderstanding.'
4. This type of mistake and not recognizing responsibility are disrespectful for the reviewers, potential reviewers, and the authors who wrote a quite nice review paper.
Am I too sensitive or unreasonable?
I am trying to help a friend resolve a problem I have never encountered as an author or as a journal editor.
The manuscript was transferred to a journal belonging to Elsevier in December 2018. It went through three rounds of review with a total of six reviewers and several rounds of editorial comments. As late as March 2020 the manuscript status changed to "reviewer invited," the author sent an inquiry, and the support team forwarded the matter to the editorial team. Three months later, the status changed to "Editor declined invitation." I never heard of that!
After the first revision, the following two rounds were largely if not entirely positive, with recommendations for acceptance. The editorial comments were dealt with properly, but sometimes the journal repeated them after some months. In March Once, they not only repeated the editorial comments, but also raised them on another manuscript belonging to someone else. A recent inquiry from the author resulted in a response to wait for the editor.
My friend's graduation is at jeopardy and she wants to withdraw the manuscript and submit elsewhere. But as she cannot do that until she received confirmation of withdrawal, that can leave her in limbo. Also, submission elsewhere is risky in terms of time and outcome. I cannot find anywhere where at the journal office or Elsevier complaints of this type.
Any suggestions on how top proceed?
My manuscript has been rejected by the editor and reviewers even after the 1st revision. Though I tend to disagree some of the points raised, assume I can't request for another revision challenging their statements.
What should I do next? The editor is offering a transfer to other journal or shall I not transfer and publish in a different journal.
I’m invited to review an article. While the article is well written, the article shows some outdated views, such as the view of authenticity, the assumption about international students hoping to get integrated into Anglophone communities. If I point out those views, the author would be expected to make much revisions, which would lead to a different article. I understand that I don’t need to agree with the author’s viewpoints. Does this mean that I should not make comments on those outdated points?
I have recently submitted a manuscript to the Third World Quarterly, the referees asked for revisions, however, the editor declined it. Why did the editor decline it, whereas the referees requested revisions?