Submissions from the Editor-in-Chief will undergo independent peer-review and will be submitted to another Editor for his decision on acceptance. Copyediting and Proofs Articles and eBook chapters must be written in good English in a clear and correct style in order to maintain uniformity throughout the text 8/4/ · Normally, the editorial evaluation and peer-review process is deliberate, taking weeks to months. On very select occasions, JAMA has the capacity to publish a research report in 10 to 12 days after submission, including external peer review and internal editorial evaluation, thorough revision by authors, and manuscript editing to JAMA blogger.com by: 23 11/4/ · The peer review process for journal publication is essentially a quality control mechanism. It is a process by which experts evaluate scholarly works, and its objective is to ensure a high quality of published science. However, peer reviewers do not make the decision to accept or reject papers. At most, they recommend a blogger.com: Editage Insights
Peer Review and Editorial Decision Making Process at Publishing Journals
The following types of contribution to the HKS Misinformation Review are peer-reviewed: Articles, Research Notes, and Literature Reviews. Letters to the Editor may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors. Commentaries are not usually peer-reviewed. Nevertheless, even commentaries, particularly if they present technical information, may be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.
The HKS Misinformation Review uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. To facilitate this, editorial peer review need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity. In line with our editorial peer review, we strive to assign peer reviewers to manuscripts as quickly as possible upon submission.
Each manuscript is assigned at least two reviewers. Reviewers are typically given 7 working days to review manuscripts. Review criteria include: validity and reliability of the research instrument; clarity and coherence; and practical significance of results. Reviewers can recommend either minor revisions expected to be completed within weeksor rejection. No manuscripts are accepted for publication without requesting revisions.
For any general questions and comments about the peer-review process, the journal, or its editorial policies that are not addressed here, we encourage you to contact us at misinforeview hks.
Final editorial decisions are made by the HKS Misinformation Review Editorial Committee. We try to evaluate the strength of the editorial peer review raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party.
We may go back to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where reviewers disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. When reviewers initially agree to review a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions as well. We invite authors to revise manuscripts when peer reviewer evaluations suggest that a paper could be publishable if it were improved by revision and clarification.
However, the invitation to revise does not guarantee publication. Given our compressed publication timeline, we do not offer editorial peer review rounds of revision. If a paper shows promise, but is deemed not to be ready for publication after the first revision, the committee will move to reject it.
Plagiarism is unacknowledged copying or an attempt to misattribute original authorship, whether of ideas, text, or results. Plagiarism can be said to have clearly occurred when large chunks of text have been cut-and-pasted without appropriate and unambiguous attribution. Such manuscripts would not be considered for publication in the HKS Misinformation Review. Aside from wholesale verbatim reuse of text, due care must be taken to ensure appropriate attribution and citation when paraphrasing and summarizing the work of others.
Here too, due caution must be exercised. We assess all such cases on their individual merits. When plagiarism becomes evident post-publication, editorial peer review, we may correct or retract the original publication depending on the degree of plagiarism, context within the published article, and its impact on the overall integrity of the published study.
Material submitted to the HKS Misinformation Review must be original and not published elsewhere. Duplicate publication occurs when an author reuses substantial parts of editorial peer review or her own published work without providing the appropriate references. This can range from publishing an identical or almost identical paper in multiple outlets, to only adding a small amount of new data to a previously published paper.
If a manuscript has been published previously or will appear elsewhere soon, it will not be considered for publication in the HKS Editorial peer review Review. Preprints may be posted at any time during the peer review process. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration at the HKS Misinformation Review.
Authors should disclose details of preprint posting, editorial peer review, including DOI and licensing terms, upon submission of the manuscript or at any other point during consideration at the HKS Misinformation Review, editorial peer review. Publishing work in conference proceedings is common in some research communities. The HKS Misinformation Review will consider submissions containing material that has been published in a conference proceedings paper.
Authors must provide details of the conference proceedings paper with their submission including relevant citation in the submitted manuscript. Authors must obtain all necessary permissions to reuse previously published material and attribute it appropriately. The HKS Misinformation Review has a policy of not publishing any author more than once every three months. We occasionally may make exceptions for co-authored articles.
The HKS Misinformation Review is committed to real and immediate open access for academic work. All of our articles are free to access immediately from the date of publication. We do not charge our authors any fees for publication or processing, editorial peer review, nor do we charge readers to download articles.
The HKS Misinformation Review is free to all at any time and in perpetuity. Thus, we depend upon the financial underwriting provided by our funding partners, the goodwill of our editorial team, and the continuing support of our network of peer reviewers, editorial peer review. The HKS Misinformation Review also operates under the Creative Commons License CC-BY. Under Creative Commons licenses, authors retain copyright to their articles.
A CC-BY license allows for the reproduction of articles, free of charge, for non-commercial and commercial use and with the appropriate citation information. All authors publishing with us accept these as the terms of publication. Data, code, and related files used to replicate the results in the manuscript can be uploaded in any format to the Harvard Dataverse.
However, we recommend that tabular datasets be editorial peer review either as an R data frame, an SPSS file, or a CSV file, editorial peer review. The Harvard Dataverse recognizes these formats as tabular data and automatically generates summary statistics and provides variable information, which allows users to better understand the data.
Interactive demonstrations can also be uploaded to the Harvard Dataverse. Data are editorial peer review products of the scientific enterprise and at the HKS Misinformation Review we believe that they should be preserved and usable for decades in the future.
If code has been used in the study, then that code should be deposited with the data. It is highly recommended that, whenever possible, the code be open source. In those cases where sensitive data cannot be made available in the repository, exceptions may be granted at the discretion of the editor-in-chief. By default, data deposited in the Harvard Dataverse will be given a Creative Commons 0 waiver, thereby allowing it to be reused for any purpose, editorial peer review, including commercial, with the expectation that the data will be cited when reused.
Editorial peer review data has already been deposited in a repository other than the Harvard Dataverse, then the author is required to deposit the data into the Harvard Dataverse and add a link to the original dataset. If a dataset is larger than 1TB, please contact editorial peer review editor-in-chief. About Us Editorial Policies.
Scientific Peer Review, ca. 1945
, time: 3:50Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review | JAMA | JAMA Network
An established provider of peer review services The Editorial Hub provides peer review co-ordination and administration to academic publishers and societies of journals and books. We are highly experienced with a range of journal management systems, including Editorial Manager, ScholarOne Manuscripts, Open Journal Systems, and eJournalPress 8/4/ · Normally, the editorial evaluation and peer-review process is deliberate, taking weeks to months. On very select occasions, JAMA has the capacity to publish a research report in 10 to 12 days after submission, including external peer review and internal editorial evaluation, thorough revision by authors, and manuscript editing to JAMA blogger.com by: 23 The following types of contribution to the HKS Misinformation Review are peer-reviewed: Articles, Research Notes, and Literature Reviews. Letters to the Editor may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors. Commentaries are not usually peer-reviewed
No comments:
Post a Comment