Viewing the Cooperation among Peer Reviewers,editors and Authors from the Evaluation of One Paper

Qiuming Cheng

2011-01-01

Abstract:Taking the peer reviewers' selection of one paper as an example,this paper analyzes the important role of high quality evaluation in the modification and improvement of a paper,and puts forward the principle of peer reviewers' selection and the necessary qualities of professional editors.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Four steps to realize effective peer review of academics journals published in China

Fang PENG,Jianhua JIN,Jianrong HUANG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11946/cjstp.201612191002

2017-01-01

Abstract:[Purposes] This paper aims to explore the strategies to achieve the effective peer review.[Methods] Based on advanced experience and measures taken by foreign journals,the problems existing in peer review of academics journals published in China were analyzed and improvement measures from the top level design were put forward.[Findings] Concrete measures include policy support and protection,comprehensive evaluation experts teams,optimized review patterns and sound evaluation and feedback systems.[Conclusions] Four kinds of measures mentioned above contribute to implementing the effective role of peer review in academic supervision and checks.
Improving the Quality of Peer Review by Guiding the Reviewers

张向谊

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16811/j.cnki.1001-4314.2013.03.029

2013-01-01

Abstract:Peer review in scientific journals is a powerful tool to ensure the academic quality of manuscripts.In order to guide the reviewers to finish the review efficiently and effectively,some information should be added in the peer review invitation and the reviewing forms.It can train the reviewers and improve the quality of peer review.
Problems in papers of graduate students majored in geotechnical engineering

Zhou Jian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-2909.2009.02.033

2009-01-01

Abstract:A solid professional knowledge and a strict scientific attitude are the basic guarantee for scientific research.Nowadays,many problems appear in research papers of geotechnical engineering,which affect the paper quality and lead to unreliable results.This phenomenon has great influence.It not only wasted research resources but also led up to a false,impetuous research culture.The author analyzed widespread problems from the aspects of theoretical research,experimental research and numerical analysis,and verified them by examples,which provided full understanding about these problems to students and supervisors.Furthermore,supervisors need to be stricter in instructions to improve the quality of the graduate papers.
Advantages and feasibility of double-blind peer-review for research articles

ZHENG Meiling,YANG Lili,SHU Qiang,LI Minju

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16811/j.cnki.1001-4314.2008.06.039

2008-01-01

Abstract:The merits of the double-blind form over the other two forms are emphasized in this paper. Single-blind peer-review is unbalanced in form, and is apt to result in lack of accountability of the referees and unfair judgment caused by personal bias. Open peer review is transparent, but it has not been mature enough to be widely adopted, especially in the present China. Double-blind peer-review is more objective and fairer compared with the single-blind form. It is favored by most researchers, and has the potential of improving the review quality and journal citation. Editors should fully recognize the double-blind form so as to play active and effective roles in the review process.
Evolution of Peer Review from the Perspective of Evaluation Theory

索传军,李艺亭

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16353/j.cnki.1000-7490.2023.05.007

2023-01-01

Abstract:[Purpose/significance] In academic evaluation activities, peer review of academic papers is the basis of all other evaluation activities.Evaluation theory essentially reveals the key elements of academic evaluation activities and their relationships.Therefore, we analyze the evolution of peer review to find out its new progress and trend.[Method/process] The evolution path is analyzed from three aspects: the subject, standard and mode of evaluation.Finally, from the perspective of philosophy of science and sociology of science, we analyze its trend and prospect for future research.[Result/conclusion] In the development of peer review, there is a trend of extensive evaluation subject, diversified evaluation standard and independent evaluation mode.Future research should focus on the concept, classification, and relationship of peers; the rationality and relationship of evaluation standards; the elements and structure of open peer review; and the peer review based on paper knowledge elements.
The Status Quo of Peer Review Research and Its Problems

jiang chunlin,zhang liwei,liu xue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-7695.2015.03.033

2015-01-01

Abstract:Peer review is an important method to guarantee the research quality in academic field,and it’s necessary in the evaluation of the academic field. But during the actual operation,peer review always occurs with deviation and lots of problems. This paper uses Cite Space visual software to identify the problems in the peer review. Then,from the perspective of peer experts,with stakeholder factors and cognitive inertia,we analyze the deeper reasons for the generation of peer review. Based on the above analysis,we propose four measures: reinforce learning,supplemented by quantitative method,open review and public review.
Understanding Peer Review of Software Engineering Papers

Neil A. Ernst,Jeffrey C. Carver,Daniel Mendez,Marco Torchiano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.01209

2021-06-18

Abstract:Peer review is a key activity intended to preserve the quality and integrity of scientific publications. However, in practice it is far from perfect. We aim at understanding how reviewers, including those who have won awards for reviewing, perform their reviews of software engineering papers to identify both what makes a good reviewing approach and what makes a good paper. We first conducted a series of in-person interviews with well-respected reviewers in the software engineering field. Then, we used the results of those interviews to develop a questionnaire used in an online survey and sent out to reviewers from well-respected venues covering a number of software engineering disciplines, some of whom had won awards for their reviewing efforts. We analyzed the responses from the interviews and from 175 reviewers who completed the online survey (including both reviewers who had won awards and those who had not). We report on several descriptive results, including: 45% of award-winners are reviewing 20+ conference papers a year, while 28% of non-award winners conduct that many. 88% of reviewers are taking more than two hours on journal reviews. We also report on qualitative results. To write a good review, the important criteria were it should be factual and helpful, ranked above others such as being detailed or kind. The most important features of papers that result in positive reviews are clear and supported validation, an interesting problem, and novelty. Conversely, negative reviews tend to result from papers that have a mismatch between the method and the claims and from those with overly grandiose claims. The main recommendation for authors is to make the contribution of the work very clear in their paper. In addition, reviewers viewed data availability and its consistency as being important.

Software Engineering,Computers and Society
Quality Assurance of Peer Code Review Process: A Computer Science Based Strategy

Y. Q. Wang,Fuli Yang,P. J. Liu,Martin Collins

2007-01-01

Abstract:The software industry is asking universities and colleges to cultivate more software engineers who can write quality programs, A peer code review process is an ideal approach to maximize the learning outcome of students in programming. In this paper, the process in our previous publication was improved. The found problems were analyzed which will take as the basis of the future research on quality assurance. Finally, a set of solutions based on computer science were proposed to further improve the whole review process.
Research on the Evaluation of Academic Papers from the Perspective of Knowledge Unit

jiang chunlin,zhang liwei,gu li,hu zhigang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-1965.2014.04.006

2014-01-01

Abstract:Academic paper is one major way for scientific researchers to output research achievements. The scientific and reasonable evaluation of academic papers will help to raise the enthusiasm of scientific researchers,promote the healthy development of scientific research.The core of the evaluation of academic papers is innovation,while the nature of innovation is the creation of new knowledge. This paper starts from the perspective of knowledge unit,states the evolutionary process of knowledge: author’s thoughts and opinions — knowledge unit — document unit,and points out that the basic unit of the academic paper’s evaluation is knowledge unit and the final objective of the evaluation is to grasp the author’s thoughts and opinions accurately. Based on the above analysis,the paper proposes a mechanism to combine the two methods(peer review and scientometrics method) for the evaluation of academic papers at last.
Peer Review System in Constructing the Community of Educational Scholarship

Jiang Kai

2012-01-01

Abstract:There are many reasons accounting for the disadvantaged situation of educational research,including theoretical and practical ones,as well as general and particular ones in various countries.Peer review system is a basic system in academic community,which ensures quality standard and is also closely related to the construction of academic community in all disciplines.There exist some distinct problems concerning peer review system in China's educational discipline,which have harmed its quality standard and hampered the improvement of its academic quality.To perfect peer review system is helpful for improving the environment of educational research and constructing the community of educational scholarship.
Development Trend Exploration of Peer-review in Scientific Journals

Yang Kekui,Gan Zhangping,Wang Man,Ruan Xingxing,Nie Hongwei,Wang Qian,Wang Shenming,Ma Huixia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-4311.2011.32.008

2011-01-01

Abstract:Peer review can raise the academic level of scientific journals.With the times and professional development,research of project review could been improved by standardizing the review mechanism,diversifing of reviewers team,electronized review performance,completed monitoring and quality assessment and so on.
Quality and Innovativeness in the Evaluation of Academic Journals

Ye Jiyuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.2013.01.221

2013-01-01

Abstract:Academic journal is an important medium of research publication and academic exchange.The academic journal evaluation system in China has been initially established,but quality and innovativeness evaluations are still weak.There are profound socio-economic,cultural,administrative reasons for this problem,which have caused negative impact on the value orientation of scholars and their research behavior,affected the objectivity and impartiality of academic evaluation,and undermined the cleanness and pureness of the academia. Scholars of the humanities and social sciences and library and information science experts have already reached a consensus that academic evaluation in the humanities and social sciences should be more diverse,localized and content-based,and there should be quality and innovativeness evaluations.In the past dozen years,academic journal evaluation is mainly quantitative and formal,but now more emphasis should be placed on content evaluation and innovativeness evaluation to create a fair and free environment for academic journal evaluation. On the premise of maintaining the reasonable elements in the existing academic journal evaluation system,this article proposes a combination of three new concepts including formal evaluation,content evaluation and effectiveness evaluation,and puts forward a new evaluation method integrating peer-review and bibliometric evaluation.The proposed combination of the three new concepts would be able to explain the history and the current situation of journal evaluation,and also predict its future.The aim of the new thinking and the approach to realize it is to overcome the institutional obstacles that hinder the healthy development of academic evaluation,to establish a fair and rational academic environment for scholars,and to create an open and constructive academic environment in the future.
The Importance and Responsibilities of Reviewers

_ _

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-24-0159.1

2024-09-14

Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology

Abstract:Scholarly publishing depends on careful evaluation of manuscripts. While editors can check the basics of a submission, they do not have the expertise to assess every manuscript that crosses their desks. Peer reviewers are subject-matter experts who volunteer their time both to advise editors on the suitability of a manuscript for publication and to provide guidance to authors in improving the accuracy and readability of their study (Schultz 2022). For these services, we as editors are truly grateful: we could not publish high-quality journals without you.

meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Review and Prospect of Research on Academic Evaluation in China—Based on the Statistical Analysis of 1429 Papers in 1998-2015

ren zengyuan,xu jing,jiang chunlin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-1965.2016.12.025

2016-01-01

Abstract:[Purpose/Significance]An efficient academic evaluation system can create good academia and help college to improve discipline quality. Under the background of the construction of " Double World-class" and innovation-driven development,howto carry out academic evaluation is a controversial challenge,which is of great significance to carry on the review,evaluation and prospect of this field.[Method/Process]Using bibliometrical analysis method,this study analyzes the paper productivity,discipline,journals,research institutions and hot topics of 1429 CSSCI source journal papers on academic evaluation from CNKI database via the Cite Space III Information Visualization Software. [Result/Conclusion]On the basis of the identification and definition of several controversial issues in this field,three suggestions are put forward on the research method of academic evaluation,including adapting to the object,prioritizing the quality and reconstructing the ration.
Process Improvement Of Peer Code Review And Behavior Analysis Of Its Participants

Wang Yan-Qing,Li Yi-Jun,Michael Collins,Liu Pei-Jie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1352135.1352171

2008-01-01

Abstract:The software industry is urging on universities and colleges to cultivate software engineers who can write high quality programs. Peer code review (PCR) is accepted as an ideal way to maximize the learning outcome of students in writing quality code. Using this learning process, students improve their skills while scientific and efficient management removes the extra burden from instructors such as checking programs written by every student. In this paper, the previous PCR process was improved and the definitions of the relevant roles and documents were refined as well. After implementing this process in two academic years, some problems were found. By means of summarizing the email submissions by the students and also interviewing a few students, the behavior of all participants was preliminarily analyzed. With regards to the further quality assurance and high efficiency, a web-based management information system with a built-in blind review mechanism was discussed for solving the problems with process control, and also a game theory model was proposed for addressing the ethical issues in the whole PCR process.
Several Problems in Assessing Quality of Biomedical Papers

DONG Yanping,LEI Shuiying,WANG Panzhi,QIAN Shouchu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16811/j.cnki.1001-4314.2009.03.010

2009-01-01

Abstract:The conventional models of quality assessment of biomedical papers and information exchange have greatly changed in the last few years.Peer review system has its weakness in medical journal publishing but has not changed much worldwide.The use of citation analysis and impact factor in assessment of research papers is out the correct track.Open access in combination with traditional peer review system seems to be feasible in evaluating biomedical research papers,and in some sense it is open,fair and justice.
An Evolutionary Game of Partners in Peer Review

Li Meng,Zhou Xianzhong,Zhu Yingying

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/WCSE.2010.73

2010-01-01

Abstract:Peer review is an important tool which is used to improve the software process. The partners that join software peer review are limited rational agent, and their strategies are complex. The paper constructs the strategy models which based on evolutionary game and its further discuss. The factors, i.e., knowledge management, performance appraisal and informal organization, exist in the software process and need to be improved.

Viewing the Cooperation among Peer Reviewers,editors and Authors from the Evaluation of One Paper

Four steps to realize effective peer review of academics journals published in China

Improving the Quality of Peer Review by Guiding the Reviewers

Problems in papers of graduate students majored in geotechnical engineering

Advantages and feasibility of double-blind peer-review for research articles

Evolution of Peer Review from the Perspective of Evaluation Theory

The Status Quo of Peer Review Research and Its Problems

Understanding Peer Review of Software Engineering Papers

Quality Assurance of Peer Code Review Process: A Computer Science Based Strategy

Research on the Evaluation of Academic Papers from the Perspective of Knowledge Unit

Peer Review System in Constructing the Community of Educational Scholarship

Development Trend Exploration of Peer-review in Scientific Journals

Quality and Innovativeness in the Evaluation of Academic Journals

The Importance and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Review and Prospect of Research on Academic Evaluation in China—Based on the Statistical Analysis of 1429 Papers in 1998-2015

Process Improvement Of Peer Code Review And Behavior Analysis Of Its Participants

Several Problems in Assessing Quality of Biomedical Papers

An Evolutionary Game of Partners in Peer Review