This document provides an overview of reviewing academic papers and conference submissions. It discusses the history and process of reviewing, as well as roles and criteria involved. Reviewing aims to ensure quality and help authors improve. The process typically involves authors submitting papers, editors assigning papers to reviewers, reviewers assessing the papers, editors making decisions, and authors revising papers. Criteria reviewed include relevance, significance/contribution, originality, clarity, and overall quality. The goal is to help researchers produce better submissions and gain knowledge in the reviewing process.
This document provides an overview of scientific paper writing. It discusses why publishing research is important, different types of venues and their review processes. It also covers topics such as ethics in publishing, rankings of venues and authors, and types of papers. The document then describes how to structure a research paper, including sections such as the introduction, main body, related work, and conclusions. Finally, it provides tips for scientific writing and the publication process.
Follow our LinkedIn Page for future events - linkedin.com/company/manuscriptpedia
Follow our Facebook Page for Future updates - https://fb.me/manuscriptpediaindia
Follow our Facebook Group for Future updates - www.facebook.com/groups/manuscriptpedia
Join our Telegram Group - https://t.me/Manuscriptpedia
For free research support call - +91 9150929629 / mail to manucriptpedia@gmail.com
For Training/Workshop/Seminars/Conference/Collaboration mail to – manuscriptpedia@gmail.com and director@manuscriptpedia.com (cc to)
Social Media in Command & Control: A proof-of-principle experimentTina Comes
The document describes a proof-of-principle experiment to test the use of social media in command and control (C2). The experiment was designed to raise the technology readiness level from the concept stage to an analytical proof of concept. It compared using traditional email (Condition A) to using Twitter and CrowdMap (Condition B) in a simulated crisis response scenario. Results found that Condition B facilitated self-synchronization across the hierarchy and completed the scenario in less time than predicted, supporting the theoretical framework. However, the experiment had limitations and further research is needed.
A Cross Impact Scenario Model of Organisational Behaviour in EmergenciesTina Comes
This document presents an overview of a cross impact scenario model for organizational behavior in emergencies. It begins with an introduction to the topic and outlines some key questions around determining success or failure in emergency preparedness and management. It then provides details on the cross impact model, including source events and assumptions, dynamic events during response, and outcome events. Tables are included to outline the different events and their relationships. The document also references background literature on topics like the Turner stage model of failures and organizational challenges. Overall, the document aims to describe a cross impact scenario modeling approach for analyzing organizational factors in emergency situations.
DRL Field Research Philippines: A Journey into the Information DisasterTina Comes
Presentation of the first impressions and insights of the field research that the team of the Disaster Resilience Lab conducted in the aftermath of Hurricane Haiyan in the Philippines in December 2013.
More information on www.disasterresiliencelab.org
Decision Support for Robust Humanitarian Relief Supply ChainsTina Comes
How can we design ad-hoc supply chains that account for the overwhelming uncertainties in the early phases of disaster response? This presentation outlines a scenario-based approach that combines methods from Operations Research, Multi-Attribute Decision Making and Scenario Planning.
Presentation at the 22nd International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making in Malaga, Spain: http://www.mcdm2013.decytec.ccee.uma.es/
This document provides guidance on how to write a critique of a book or article. It recommends beginning by reading the work carefully and taking notes. The critique introduction should state the author, title, source, and thesis. The body should summarize the main points and evidence, and critically review the work by evaluating the author's credentials, methods, evidence, arguments, and conclusions. It should consider alternative perspectives. The conclusion should state whether the critique agrees with the author and back this up with reasons, along with an overall opinion of the work. When critiquing, reviews should be balanced with both positives and negatives, clearly explained, and avoid revealing major plot details.
The document provides instructions for writing a critique of a book or article. It explains that a critique should provide a summary and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the work, including the thesis, organization, style, and values/assumptions of the author. The critique should ultimately answer whether the book or article is worth reading based on a critical analysis of its content and context.
This document provides an overview of scientific paper writing. It discusses why publishing research is important, different types of venues and their review processes. It also covers topics such as ethics in publishing, rankings of venues and authors, and types of papers. The document then describes how to structure a research paper, including sections such as the introduction, main body, related work, and conclusions. Finally, it provides tips for scientific writing and the publication process.
Follow our LinkedIn Page for future events - linkedin.com/company/manuscriptpedia
Follow our Facebook Page for Future updates - https://fb.me/manuscriptpediaindia
Follow our Facebook Group for Future updates - www.facebook.com/groups/manuscriptpedia
Join our Telegram Group - https://t.me/Manuscriptpedia
For free research support call - +91 9150929629 / mail to manucriptpedia@gmail.com
For Training/Workshop/Seminars/Conference/Collaboration mail to – manuscriptpedia@gmail.com and director@manuscriptpedia.com (cc to)
Social Media in Command & Control: A proof-of-principle experimentTina Comes
The document describes a proof-of-principle experiment to test the use of social media in command and control (C2). The experiment was designed to raise the technology readiness level from the concept stage to an analytical proof of concept. It compared using traditional email (Condition A) to using Twitter and CrowdMap (Condition B) in a simulated crisis response scenario. Results found that Condition B facilitated self-synchronization across the hierarchy and completed the scenario in less time than predicted, supporting the theoretical framework. However, the experiment had limitations and further research is needed.
A Cross Impact Scenario Model of Organisational Behaviour in EmergenciesTina Comes
This document presents an overview of a cross impact scenario model for organizational behavior in emergencies. It begins with an introduction to the topic and outlines some key questions around determining success or failure in emergency preparedness and management. It then provides details on the cross impact model, including source events and assumptions, dynamic events during response, and outcome events. Tables are included to outline the different events and their relationships. The document also references background literature on topics like the Turner stage model of failures and organizational challenges. Overall, the document aims to describe a cross impact scenario modeling approach for analyzing organizational factors in emergency situations.
DRL Field Research Philippines: A Journey into the Information DisasterTina Comes
Presentation of the first impressions and insights of the field research that the team of the Disaster Resilience Lab conducted in the aftermath of Hurricane Haiyan in the Philippines in December 2013.
More information on www.disasterresiliencelab.org
Decision Support for Robust Humanitarian Relief Supply ChainsTina Comes
How can we design ad-hoc supply chains that account for the overwhelming uncertainties in the early phases of disaster response? This presentation outlines a scenario-based approach that combines methods from Operations Research, Multi-Attribute Decision Making and Scenario Planning.
Presentation at the 22nd International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making in Malaga, Spain: http://www.mcdm2013.decytec.ccee.uma.es/
This document provides guidance on how to write a critique of a book or article. It recommends beginning by reading the work carefully and taking notes. The critique introduction should state the author, title, source, and thesis. The body should summarize the main points and evidence, and critically review the work by evaluating the author's credentials, methods, evidence, arguments, and conclusions. It should consider alternative perspectives. The conclusion should state whether the critique agrees with the author and back this up with reasons, along with an overall opinion of the work. When critiquing, reviews should be balanced with both positives and negatives, clearly explained, and avoid revealing major plot details.
The document provides instructions for writing a critique of a book or article. It explains that a critique should provide a summary and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the work, including the thesis, organization, style, and values/assumptions of the author. The critique should ultimately answer whether the book or article is worth reading based on a critical analysis of its content and context.
This document provides an overview of the process for publishing in academic journals, including selecting a journal, submitting a manuscript, the review and editing process, and tips for preparing publications. It discusses factors to consider when choosing a journal such as language, impact measures, and peer review process. The document reviews common questions from authors, outlines the typical stages for manuscript handling including revisions and final acceptance, and lists resources for academic publishing guidelines and style manuals. It concludes with notes on editorial preferences and a sampling of relevant journals in new media and internet studies.
The document provides an overview of the PhD process at UCD School of Mathematical Sciences. It discusses the standards required for a PhD degree including independence, originality, contribution to knowledge, and work suitable for publication. It outlines the research process, emphasizing the importance of planning, execution, analysis, and reporting. It also discusses the responsibilities of students and supervisors, criteria for assessing PhD theses, authorship, and responsible research conduct. Throughout it emphasizes that a PhD requires solid, independent work to advance understanding in a research area.
This document provides guidance on how to write and publish a good research paper. It discusses selecting the appropriate journal by considering topics of interest, trends in the field, impact factor, and guidelines for authors. The document reviews best practices for paper structure, including using clear and concise language in the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections. It emphasizes the importance of structure, focus, and addressing the needs of the intended audience.
This document provides guidance on writing for publication. It discusses why researchers write for publication, what peer review involves, and potential outcomes from peer review such as acceptance, requiring minor or major revisions, or rejection. It provides tips for enhancing the chances of acceptance, such as considering the audience, message, guidelines, and setting the appropriate context. It also introduces the Chinese Scholars Network resource for Mandarin-speaking researchers.
This document provides information about European Research Council (ERC) Starting and Consolidator Grants, including details about the aims of the session, UK participation post-Brexit, what the ERC is, eligibility requirements, the structure and objectives of the ERC, panels, and the proposal evaluation process. The document is intended to help potential applicants understand the application process and requirements for ERC grants.
How to publish in an isi journal حنان القرشيvdsr_ksu
محاضرة How to publish in an ISI Journal إعداد الدكتورة حنان عبدالله القرشي
ضمن سلسلة محاضرات البحث العلمي لعام 1437هـ.
وكالة عمادة البحث العلمي للأقسام النسائية، جامعة الملك سعود.
This document provides an overview of methodology and tools for scientific publishing. It discusses the objectives of the course, which are to understand facets of publishing such as journals, conferences, books, and publication workflows. It also covers obtaining an idea of publication-based evaluation metrics like impact factor and h-index. The document outlines different types of scientific documents, principles of publication, economics of publishing, and bibliometrics.
getting your work published 291107______.pptemailwakmah
This document provides information on the journal publishing process, including deciding whether and where to publish research, understanding impact factors, what editors look for in manuscripts, writing the paper, responding to referee reports, and tips for success. The key steps are selecting an appropriate journal, writing a clear and compelling paper, undergoing peer review, responding thoroughly to referee feedback, and revising as needed until the paper is accepted for publication. The overall goal is to contribute new knowledge through high-quality research that will interest readers and be cited.
Publishing in academic journals medicine and healthuoblibraries
The document provides guidance for publishing medical research in academic journals, outlining key considerations for choosing a journal such as scope, audience, and impact, as well as discussing open access models, challenges with predatory journals, and best practices for writing and submitting manuscripts for peer review.
ERC Starting Grants- a guide quick guideScott McGee
The European Research Council (ERC) is a pan-European funding body that supports excellent researchers and their teams. The ERC provides over €12 billion in funding from 2014-2020 for frontier research projects across all fields. The Starting Grants scheme provides up to €2 million over 5 years to support early career principal investigators establishing their own research team or program. Applicants must have 2-7 years of experience since earning their PhD and demonstrate their potential for research independence and early achievements through publications, patents, and other accomplishments. Evaluation is based solely on scientific excellence and the proposal will undergo a two-stage peer review process.
This document outlines IHTE's publishing strategy and best practices. The vision is for IHTE researchers to publish high quality papers in top journals and conferences by 2016 that clearly contribute to their fields and are referenced by others. The strategy involves well-planned research, choosing high-impact forums, getting support for writing, and setting publication targets. The policy prioritizes level 2 and 3 journals/conferences, aims for clear contributions, and guarantees travel funding. Researchers should identify key forums and get peer feedback. Support includes training, funding, and guidance from supervisors. Quality is prioritized over quantity and project reporting can directly inform publications.
Leveraging a Library CMS and Social Media to promote #openaccess (OA) to inst...Nick Sheppard
The confluence of various technologies and Open Access (OA) initiatives make it easy to share research outputs via social media and assess the reach and impact of dissemination. The Library at Leeds Beckett utilises LibGuides as our CMS and supports the institutional research management infrastructure comprising Symplectic Elements and EPrints, and we have developed a dedicated series of LibGuides around selected themes comprising a range of relevant information and including institutional research outputs. For World Diabetes Day, for example, we curated a collection of research outputs and utilised the Elements API to display a date ordered list of citations including, where available, links to author versions, self-archived and openly accessible in EPrints alongside an embedded Twitter feed from @WDD, the Official Twitter account of the campaign from the International Diabetes Federation. The page was disseminated via Twitter from accounts operated by the Library, @BeckettLibrary and @BeckettResearch, including targeted tweets to @WDD and individual academics. With over 4,500 and 1,500 followers respectively these accounts are well subscribed and received several "retweets". The guide, whilst highlighting and strengthening the role of the library as a tool for researchers, was also an advocacy tool to engage academics in OA. This paper will explore the context and technology of this initiative and present data from Twitter analytics and so called "altmetrics" as a means of visualising how research is shared and disseminated online and which are potential indicators of impact beyond the traditional readership of scholarly material, especially in conjunction with OA.
Togar M. Simatupang gave a presentation on conducting research and getting work published. He discussed the process of developing research ideas, choosing appropriate research methods, structuring manuscripts, and navigating the publication process. He emphasized that publishing papers regularly is important for academic careers. The presentation outlined key steps like selecting target journals, responding to peer reviews, and improving manuscripts based on feedback in order to get work published.
The document provides guidance on how to write a scientific paper. It discusses the typical structure of a paper, including the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references sections. It emphasizes that scientific writing follows a rigid structure for readers to understand the paper at different levels of depth. The document also provides tips for submitting papers to journals, the peer review process, and reasons for potential manuscript rejection.
I present an insider’s view on peer review drawing from my experience at the journals of the American Physical Society (Physical Review B, Physical Review Letters, and Physical Review X) where I have worked since 2003. First, I discuss the basic elements of peer review (editorial screening, rejection without external review, referee selection, consultation with Editorial Board Members, assessment of referee reports, handling of conflicting referee recommendations, selection of a subset of accepted papers for highlighting). In the process, I present some commonly used arguments by authors that can actually backfire, and some anecdotal excerpts of correspondence. Second, I discuss some recent trends in science publishing, from launching new journals to providing new services to authors. I focus on one recent trend, the highlighting of select sets of papers by publishers. Third, I discuss citation impact metrics for journals (Impact Factor, EigenFactor, h5 index) and for subsets of journals (e.g., Editors’ Suggestions, papers highlighted in APS Physics, etc.). This leads naturally to the questions (a) whether editors and referees can pick out, at the time of acceptance, the papers destined to be highly cited or otherwise influential; and (b) whether such papers tend to be controversial at the time of publication and after. I present some data on these questions. Overall, my aim is for the audience to appreciate the imperfect and imprecise nature of editorial decision-making that is sometimes unappreciated by a community trained in the hard sciences. Finally, for the benefit of the younger audience, I present a brief outline of the editorial job and career prospects of editors.
Juan Cruz-Benito
GRIAL Research Group, Department of Computers and Automatics
University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Education in the Knowledge Society PhD programme.
University of Salamanca 7/11/2016
The document discusses scientific publishing and the peer review process. It covers:
- The history of scientific publishing and the growth of journals since 1665.
- Why researchers publish - for registration, validation, dissemination and archiving of their work.
- The peer review process that editors use to validate research quality before publication.
- Metrics that publishers and editors use to measure journal quality, including citations, impact factors, and other bibliometric data.
RQ1. What are the differences between e-commerce and s-commerce?
RQ2. What are the characteristics of s-commerce?
RQ3. What are the activities of s-commerce?
RQ4. What are the research themes that are addressed in s-commerce studies?
RQ5. What are the limitations and gaps in current research of s-commerce?
The document outlines the procedures for conducting a systematic literature review on social commerce (s-commerce), including developing research questions, defining a search strategy, selecting studies, assessing study quality, extracting and synthesizing data. The review aims to understand the key concepts of s-commerce, explore common research themes,
This document provides an overview of the process for publishing in academic journals, including selecting a journal, submitting a manuscript, the review and editing process, and tips for preparing publications. It discusses factors to consider when choosing a journal such as language, impact measures, and peer review process. The document reviews common questions from authors, outlines the typical stages for manuscript handling including revisions and final acceptance, and lists resources for academic publishing guidelines and style manuals. It concludes with notes on editorial preferences and a sampling of relevant journals in new media and internet studies.
The document provides an overview of the PhD process at UCD School of Mathematical Sciences. It discusses the standards required for a PhD degree including independence, originality, contribution to knowledge, and work suitable for publication. It outlines the research process, emphasizing the importance of planning, execution, analysis, and reporting. It also discusses the responsibilities of students and supervisors, criteria for assessing PhD theses, authorship, and responsible research conduct. Throughout it emphasizes that a PhD requires solid, independent work to advance understanding in a research area.
This document provides guidance on how to write and publish a good research paper. It discusses selecting the appropriate journal by considering topics of interest, trends in the field, impact factor, and guidelines for authors. The document reviews best practices for paper structure, including using clear and concise language in the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections. It emphasizes the importance of structure, focus, and addressing the needs of the intended audience.
This document provides guidance on writing for publication. It discusses why researchers write for publication, what peer review involves, and potential outcomes from peer review such as acceptance, requiring minor or major revisions, or rejection. It provides tips for enhancing the chances of acceptance, such as considering the audience, message, guidelines, and setting the appropriate context. It also introduces the Chinese Scholars Network resource for Mandarin-speaking researchers.
This document provides information about European Research Council (ERC) Starting and Consolidator Grants, including details about the aims of the session, UK participation post-Brexit, what the ERC is, eligibility requirements, the structure and objectives of the ERC, panels, and the proposal evaluation process. The document is intended to help potential applicants understand the application process and requirements for ERC grants.
How to publish in an isi journal حنان القرشيvdsr_ksu
محاضرة How to publish in an ISI Journal إعداد الدكتورة حنان عبدالله القرشي
ضمن سلسلة محاضرات البحث العلمي لعام 1437هـ.
وكالة عمادة البحث العلمي للأقسام النسائية، جامعة الملك سعود.
This document provides an overview of methodology and tools for scientific publishing. It discusses the objectives of the course, which are to understand facets of publishing such as journals, conferences, books, and publication workflows. It also covers obtaining an idea of publication-based evaluation metrics like impact factor and h-index. The document outlines different types of scientific documents, principles of publication, economics of publishing, and bibliometrics.
getting your work published 291107______.pptemailwakmah
This document provides information on the journal publishing process, including deciding whether and where to publish research, understanding impact factors, what editors look for in manuscripts, writing the paper, responding to referee reports, and tips for success. The key steps are selecting an appropriate journal, writing a clear and compelling paper, undergoing peer review, responding thoroughly to referee feedback, and revising as needed until the paper is accepted for publication. The overall goal is to contribute new knowledge through high-quality research that will interest readers and be cited.
Publishing in academic journals medicine and healthuoblibraries
The document provides guidance for publishing medical research in academic journals, outlining key considerations for choosing a journal such as scope, audience, and impact, as well as discussing open access models, challenges with predatory journals, and best practices for writing and submitting manuscripts for peer review.
ERC Starting Grants- a guide quick guideScott McGee
The European Research Council (ERC) is a pan-European funding body that supports excellent researchers and their teams. The ERC provides over €12 billion in funding from 2014-2020 for frontier research projects across all fields. The Starting Grants scheme provides up to €2 million over 5 years to support early career principal investigators establishing their own research team or program. Applicants must have 2-7 years of experience since earning their PhD and demonstrate their potential for research independence and early achievements through publications, patents, and other accomplishments. Evaluation is based solely on scientific excellence and the proposal will undergo a two-stage peer review process.
This document outlines IHTE's publishing strategy and best practices. The vision is for IHTE researchers to publish high quality papers in top journals and conferences by 2016 that clearly contribute to their fields and are referenced by others. The strategy involves well-planned research, choosing high-impact forums, getting support for writing, and setting publication targets. The policy prioritizes level 2 and 3 journals/conferences, aims for clear contributions, and guarantees travel funding. Researchers should identify key forums and get peer feedback. Support includes training, funding, and guidance from supervisors. Quality is prioritized over quantity and project reporting can directly inform publications.
Leveraging a Library CMS and Social Media to promote #openaccess (OA) to inst...Nick Sheppard
The confluence of various technologies and Open Access (OA) initiatives make it easy to share research outputs via social media and assess the reach and impact of dissemination. The Library at Leeds Beckett utilises LibGuides as our CMS and supports the institutional research management infrastructure comprising Symplectic Elements and EPrints, and we have developed a dedicated series of LibGuides around selected themes comprising a range of relevant information and including institutional research outputs. For World Diabetes Day, for example, we curated a collection of research outputs and utilised the Elements API to display a date ordered list of citations including, where available, links to author versions, self-archived and openly accessible in EPrints alongside an embedded Twitter feed from @WDD, the Official Twitter account of the campaign from the International Diabetes Federation. The page was disseminated via Twitter from accounts operated by the Library, @BeckettLibrary and @BeckettResearch, including targeted tweets to @WDD and individual academics. With over 4,500 and 1,500 followers respectively these accounts are well subscribed and received several "retweets". The guide, whilst highlighting and strengthening the role of the library as a tool for researchers, was also an advocacy tool to engage academics in OA. This paper will explore the context and technology of this initiative and present data from Twitter analytics and so called "altmetrics" as a means of visualising how research is shared and disseminated online and which are potential indicators of impact beyond the traditional readership of scholarly material, especially in conjunction with OA.
Togar M. Simatupang gave a presentation on conducting research and getting work published. He discussed the process of developing research ideas, choosing appropriate research methods, structuring manuscripts, and navigating the publication process. He emphasized that publishing papers regularly is important for academic careers. The presentation outlined key steps like selecting target journals, responding to peer reviews, and improving manuscripts based on feedback in order to get work published.
The document provides guidance on how to write a scientific paper. It discusses the typical structure of a paper, including the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references sections. It emphasizes that scientific writing follows a rigid structure for readers to understand the paper at different levels of depth. The document also provides tips for submitting papers to journals, the peer review process, and reasons for potential manuscript rejection.
I present an insider’s view on peer review drawing from my experience at the journals of the American Physical Society (Physical Review B, Physical Review Letters, and Physical Review X) where I have worked since 2003. First, I discuss the basic elements of peer review (editorial screening, rejection without external review, referee selection, consultation with Editorial Board Members, assessment of referee reports, handling of conflicting referee recommendations, selection of a subset of accepted papers for highlighting). In the process, I present some commonly used arguments by authors that can actually backfire, and some anecdotal excerpts of correspondence. Second, I discuss some recent trends in science publishing, from launching new journals to providing new services to authors. I focus on one recent trend, the highlighting of select sets of papers by publishers. Third, I discuss citation impact metrics for journals (Impact Factor, EigenFactor, h5 index) and for subsets of journals (e.g., Editors’ Suggestions, papers highlighted in APS Physics, etc.). This leads naturally to the questions (a) whether editors and referees can pick out, at the time of acceptance, the papers destined to be highly cited or otherwise influential; and (b) whether such papers tend to be controversial at the time of publication and after. I present some data on these questions. Overall, my aim is for the audience to appreciate the imperfect and imprecise nature of editorial decision-making that is sometimes unappreciated by a community trained in the hard sciences. Finally, for the benefit of the younger audience, I present a brief outline of the editorial job and career prospects of editors.
Juan Cruz-Benito
GRIAL Research Group, Department of Computers and Automatics
University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Education in the Knowledge Society PhD programme.
University of Salamanca 7/11/2016
The document discusses scientific publishing and the peer review process. It covers:
- The history of scientific publishing and the growth of journals since 1665.
- Why researchers publish - for registration, validation, dissemination and archiving of their work.
- The peer review process that editors use to validate research quality before publication.
- Metrics that publishers and editors use to measure journal quality, including citations, impact factors, and other bibliometric data.
RQ1. What are the differences between e-commerce and s-commerce?
RQ2. What are the characteristics of s-commerce?
RQ3. What are the activities of s-commerce?
RQ4. What are the research themes that are addressed in s-commerce studies?
RQ5. What are the limitations and gaps in current research of s-commerce?
The document outlines the procedures for conducting a systematic literature review on social commerce (s-commerce), including developing research questions, defining a search strategy, selecting studies, assessing study quality, extracting and synthesizing data. The review aims to understand the key concepts of s-commerce, explore common research themes,
Similar to Tutorial on reviewing your own paper (and those of others) (20)
Efficient PHP Development Solutions for Dynamic Web ApplicationsHarwinder Singh
Unlock the full potential of your web projects with our expert PHP development solutions. From robust backend systems to dynamic front-end interfaces, we deliver scalable, secure, and high-performance applications tailored to your needs. Trust our skilled team to transform your ideas into reality with custom PHP programming, ensuring seamless functionality and a superior user experience.
NIMA2024 | De toegevoegde waarde van DEI en ESG in campagnes | Nathalie Lam |...BBPMedia1
Nathalie zal delen hoe DEI en ESG een fundamentele rol kunnen spelen in je merkstrategie en je de juiste aansluiting kan creëren met je doelgroep. Door middel van voorbeelden en simpele handvatten toont ze hoe dit in jouw organisatie toegepast kan worden.
Adani Group's Active Interest In Increasing Its Presence in the Cement Manufa...Adani case
Time and again, the business group has taken up new business ventures, each of which has allowed it to expand its horizons further and reach new heights. Even amidst the Adani CBI Investigation, the firm has always focused on improving its cement business.
SATTA MATKA DPBOSS KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART KALYAN MATKA MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA TIPS SATTA MATKA MATKA COM MATKA PANA JODI TODAY BATTA SATKA MATKA PATTI JODI NUMBER MATKA RESULTS MATKA CHART MATKA JODI SATTA COM INDIA SATTA MATKA MATKA TIPS MATKA WAPKA ALL MATKA RESULT LIVE ONLINE MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA RESULT DPBOSS MATKA 143 MAIN MATKA KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART
SATTA MATKA DPBOSS KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART KALYAN MATKA MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA TIPS SATTA MATKA MATKA COM MATKA PANA JODI TODAY BATTA SATKA MATKA PATTI JODI NUMBER MATKA RESULTS MATKA CHART MATKA JODI SATTA COM INDIA SATTA MATKA MATKA TIPS MATKA WAPKA ALL MATKA RESULT LIVE ONLINE MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA RESULT DPBOSS MATKA 143 MAIN MATKA KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART
Satta matka fixx jodi panna all market dpboss matka guessing fixx panna jodi kalyan and all market game liss cover now 420 matka office mumbai maharashtra india fixx jodi panna
Call me 9040963354
WhatsApp 9040963354
High-Quality IPTV Monthly Subscription for $15advik4387
Experience high-quality entertainment with our IPTV monthly subscription for just $15. Access a vast array of live TV channels, movies, and on-demand shows with crystal-clear streaming. Our reliable service ensures smooth, uninterrupted viewing at an unbeatable price. Perfect for those seeking premium content without breaking the bank. Start streaming today!
https://rb.gy/f409dk
SATTA MATKA DPBOSS KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART KALYAN MATKA MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA TIPS SATTA MATKA MATKA COM MATKA PANA JODI TODAY BATTA SATKA MATKA PATTI JODI NUMBER MATKA RESULTS MATKA CHART MATKA JODI SATTA COM INDIA SATTA MATKA MATKA TIPS MATKA WAPKA ALL MATKA RESULT LIVE ONLINE MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA RESULT DPBOSS MATKA 143 MAIN MATKA KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART
Enhancing Adoption of AI in Agri-food: IntroductionCor Verdouw
Introduction to the Panel on: Pathways and Challenges: AI-Driven Technology in Agri-Food, AI4Food, University of Guelph
“Enhancing Adoption of AI in Agri-food: a Path Forward”, 18 June 2024
Enhancing Adoption of AI in Agri-food: Introduction
Tutorial on reviewing your own paper (and those of others)
1. Reviewing Your Own Paper
(and those of others)
Tim Grant
Retired But Active Researcher (R-BAR)
Chair, ISCRAM Publications & Academic
Standards Committee (PASC)
r̅
2. Overview
• Goal:
– To help listeners to produce better submissions to
conferences, journals, & books by gaining
knowledge of reviewing own & other papers
• Outline:
– Reviewing: history, process, products, roles
– Reviewing criteria & how to review
– Shortcomings, criticisms & failure of reviewing
– Online possibilities
– Key resources
– An exercise for the attendee
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
2
3. Introduction: about me
• Career:
– 1966-87: Royal Air Force officer (UK & SG)
– 1987-2004: Consultant, ICT services industry (NL)
– 2001-09: Visiting Professor, University of Pretoria (ZA)
– 2004-12: Professor, Netherlands Defence Academy (NL)
• Qualifications:
– 1969: Bachelor of Science, Aero Engineering, Bristol (UK)
– 1984: Defence Fellowship (Masters), Brunel (UK)
– 1996: PhD, Artificial Intelligence, Maastricht (NL)
• ISCRAM:
– 2009-date: Board member & PASC chair
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
3
4. Introduction: reviewing (1)
• Reviewing (aka refereeing):
– Subjecting draft proposals, papers, posters, demonstrations,
theses, courses, subjects, etc to critical evaluation
• Why?
– Quality control; help authors to learn
– Admission to “Body of Knowledge” (BoK)
– Assignment of credit & priority to authors
• By whom?
– Independent experts working in same field
– Can be board / panel / tribunal of experts
– More usually peers (other researchers / authors)
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
4
5. Introduction: reviewing (2)
• Where?
– Evaluation of applications for funding
– Review of project reports by researchers to assess
successful progress / completion
– Review of draft conference presentations, journal articles,
and monographs to check they meet quality standards
– Evaluation of set of papers after publication for review article
– Evaluation of quality of work produced by individuals, teams,
departments, and institutions to help determine:
• Appointments
• Promotions
• Levels of funding
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
5
RIN, 2010
6. Brief history (1)
• 854-931: Ishap bin Ali Al Rahwi, “Ethics of Physician”:
– 1st
description of (medical) peer review
• 1453: printing press
• 1543-1564: Copernicus, Servetus, Galileo, Versalius:
– Review by non-peers
• 1620: Francis Bacon’s New Philosophy:
– Scientific method
• 1662: Royal Society, London, chartered:
– 1st
learned society
• 1665: Philosophical Transactions:
– 1st
scientific journal; editor selects publications
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
6
Spier, 2002
7. Brief history (2)
• 1752: Royal Society adopts review procedure:
– Pioneered in Edinburgh since 1731
– Need for editorial committee (initially to fill excess space)
• 1890: Typewriter & carbon copies (1959 Xerox):
– Easier to circulate submissions to reviewers
• Approx 1940: Diversity & specialization of material:
– Excess journal space vanishes; need to discriminate
– Need for external reviewers
• 1989-98: International Congresses on Peer Review
• Since approx 1990: PC, Internet, email, WWW:
– Online journals; Open Access movement
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
7
Spier, 2002
8. Reviewing process (1)
Linköping, 5 Jun 13 8
Problem Research Write up Review Publish
Research
Funding
Teach Evaluate
Teaching
Design
Develop
Product Service
Valorization
Evaluate
citations / impact
patents
use in courses
Ideally should predict
citations / impact, patents,
& use in courses
BoK
9. Reviewing process (2)
• Steps in review process:
1. Authors submit draft paper to editors/publishers
2. Publisher’s staff log submission & acknowledge receipt
3. Editors assign draft paper to reviewers
4. Reviewers assess draft paper, recommending acceptance,
rejection, or modification
• Typically 2 or 3 reviewers
1. Editors weigh recommendations, make decision, & inform
authors
2. Authors modify paper & resubmit revised version
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
9
RIN, 2010
10. Reviewing process (3)
• Steps in ISCRAM review process:
1. Authors upload draft paper to ConfTool
2. ConfTool logs, acknowledges receipt, & informs Track chair
3. Track chair assigns draft paper to reviewers in ConfTool
4. Reviewers assess draft paper, recommending acceptance,
rejection, or modification in ConfTool
5. Meta-reviewers weigh recommendations in ConfTool
6. Track chair makes decision & informs authors via ConfTool
7. Authors modify paper & upload revised version, details of
changes made & copyright form to ConfTool
8. ConfTool logs, acknowledges receipt, & informs Track chair
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
10
(Adapted from) RIN, 2010
11. Reviewing process (4)
• Variations on reviewing process:
– Submission:
• (Extended) abstract + paper; paper only
– Submission types:
• Full paper; short/work-in-progress paper; practitioner
paper; poster; demonstration; exhibit
– Reviewing:
• By committee; blind; double-blind; restricted; crowd (open)
– Medium:
• Paper; CD-ROM; USB; online
• Restricted (to attendees or to members) vs open access
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
11
12. Reviewing process (5)
• Steps in review process (with abstract, eg for book):
1. Authors submit abstract to editors/publishers
2. Editors assess abstract, make decision, & inform authors
3. Authors submit draft paper to editors/publishers
4. Publisher’s staff log & acknowledge receipt
5. Editors assign draft paper to reviewers
6. Reviewers assess draft paper, recommending acceptance,
rejection, or modification
7. Editors weigh recommendations, make decision, & inform
authors
8. Authors modify paper & resubmit revised version
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
12
(Adapted from) RIN, 2010
13. Reviewing process (6)
• Steps in review process (for journal):
1. Authors submit abstract to editors/publishers
2. Editors assess abstract, make decision, & inform authors
3. Authors submit draft paper to editors/publishers
4. Publisher’s staff log & acknowledge receipt
5. Editors assign draft paper to reviewers
6. Reviewers assess draft paper, recommending acceptance,
rejection, or modification
7. Editors weigh recommendations, make decision, & inform authors
8. Authors modify draft paper & resubmit revised version
9. Reviewers assess revised paper & make new recommendation
10. Editors weigh recommendations, make decision, & inform authors
11. Authors modify paper & resubmit revised version
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
13
(Adapted from) RIN, 2010
14. Reviewing process (7)
• Conferences:
– Usually 1 iteration; paper only; 8-10 pages
– (Less often) 2 iterations: first abstract, then paper
• Journals:
– 2 or more iterations; paper only; 20-30 pages
– At least 50% new material for conference paper
• Books:
– 2 iterations:
• Extended abstract or chapter proposal (typically 2 pages)
• Chapter / contribution; 20-30 pages
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
14
15. Reviewing process (8)
• Differences between disciplines:
– Humanities & social sciences:
• Double-blind common
• Authors may be allowed to nominate reviewer(s)
– Sciences:
• Single-blind common; increasingly double-blind
– Medical field:
• Increasingly open-review
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
15
16. Products from reviewing
• Paper template
• Copyright form
• Review template
• Email templates for:
– Acknowledging receipt
– Informing Track chair of upload
– Assigning papers to reviewers
– Rejection, acceptance, & conditional acceptance
– Final acceptance of camera-ready copy
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
16
17. Roles in reviewing
• Author: writes, submits & modifies paper
• Track chair: assigns submissions to reviewers
• Reviewer: reviews set (2..6) of submissions
• Meta-reviewer: moderates (2..4) reviews
• (Editor: combines Track chair & meta-reviewer roles)
• Programme Committee = {Editors}
– ISCRAM: Scientific Committee = {Track chairs}
– Moderates across tracks
• Programme Chair (& co-chairs):
– Decides conference schedule
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
17
18. Reviewing procedures
• Review procedure documents (eg ISCRAM):
– Review process:
• Overview for conference organizers
– Review timeline:
• Helps conference organizers schedule activities
– Review guidelines:
• For reviewers of full, short / work-in-progress, & practitioner
papers
– Meta-review & final decision:
• For meta-reviewers, track chairs, & Scientific Committee
– Best (Student) Paper procedure:
• For Best Paper sub-committees & conference organizers
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
18
19. Criteria for reviewing (1)
Criterion ISCRAM BNAIC PlanSIG ICIW
(Discipline) IS + CRAM AI Planning Cyber/info war
Relevance x x x x
Significance/contribution x - x x
Originality x (full only) x x -
Validity x (full only) x x x
Clarity/readability x x x x
(Others) Best Paper? Award? Method, drawings,
abstract, keywords,
references
Overall score x x x x
Reviewer’s confidence x x x -
Remarks for author(s) x x x x
Remarks for PC x x x -
Linköping, 5 Jun 13 19
Tutorial on reviewing
20. Criteria for reviewing (2)
• Relevance:
– Papers should be clearly relevant to conference’s subject
area, not generalist
– ISCRAM (= IS + CRAM):
• Technical papers (information systems, computer science, IT)
should describe implications for crisis response and/or
emergency management
• Vice versa for crisis response / emergency management papers
– Tips:
• Read Call For Papers!
• Ensure paper fits into topic or track
• Does this year’s conference have special theme?
– If so, try to make link to theme in paper (N.B. nice to have)
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
20
21. Criteria for reviewing (3)
• Significance / contribution:
– Does paper make a significant contribution to literature?
• Significance means contribution opens up (or closes off) previously
unexplored lines of research or of development (valorization)
– Does paper state the contribution it makes?
– Does paper link this contribution to pre-existing literature?
– Does paper identify the limitations of this contribution?
• From method & from what is outside scope of paper
• Limitations can always be topics for further research!
– Tips:
• Know the relevant literature!
• Don’t overclaim, i.e. overstate contribution
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
21
22. Criteria for reviewing (4)
• Originality / novelty:
– Ideas must be non-trivial, new & timely, not “more of same”
• Case study can be new
• Literature survey paper can be new if it “adds value”, eg
structuring literature in a new way
• Application of established ideas to another field can be new:
– Idea may be known in IS literature, but not yet applied to CRAM.
– And vice versa - which is why practitioner papers are so important
– Tips:
• Know the relevant literature!
• Where can, exploit multi-disciplinary nature (e.g. IS + CRAM)
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
22
23. Criteria for reviewing (5)
• Validity / soundness / thoroughness:
– Is purpose of paper clearly stated? And paper’s scope?
– Is research question / hypothesis clearly stated?
– Are appropriate methods used?
• Is best practice for method followed? (eg case study, literature survey)
– Is argument logically sound? Statistics & equations correct?
– Is treatment /discussion thorough?
• In enough detail for another researcher to reproduce what you did?
– Tips:
• Ensure paper tells story:
– Not necessarily the order in which you did your research!
• Reflect on your contribution in context of related literature
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
23
24. Criteria for reviewing (6)
• Clarity / readability / structure:
– Well structured? Grammatically correct? Easy to read?
– Abbreviations in full on 1st
use? Jargon known to readers?
– Citations given in full & easy to find?
– Can oldies (60+) read graphics without magnifying glass?
– Tips:
• Apply “magic number of 5 +/- 2” to number of sections
• First section should be “Introduction” or “Motivation”
• Last section should be “Conclusions & Further Research”
• Review relevant literature in 2nd
or 2nd
-to-last section
• Do not exceed page or word limit!
• Use spelling & grammar checker!
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
24
25. How to review (1)
• Reviewing is extension of reading paper
• Keshav’s three-pass method for reading:
– Pass (1): Quick-scan (5-10 mins):
• Read title, abstract, & introduction
• Read section & sub-section headings (structure)
• Glance at equations (if any)
• Read conclusions
• Glance over references to see which ones you know
– Should be able to answer “five Cs”:
• Category; context; correctness; contribution, clarity
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
25
Keshav, 2012
26. How to review (2)
– Pass (2): Read paper with more care (1 hour):
• Ignore details such as proofs
• Jot down key points, or make notes in margin
• Look carefully at figures, diagrams, & other illustrations
• Mark relevant unread references for further reading
• Answer:
– What does paper do? (Rationale/motivation, aims, hypothesis)
– How does it do it? (Participants, method)
– What did it find? (Findings, implications, falsifiable, limitations)
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
26
Keshav, 2012
27. How to review (3)
– Pass (3): Virtually re-create paper (4-5 hours):
• Making same assumptions, re-create paper in own way
• Compare re-creation with actual paper:
– Identify & challenge every statement
– Jot ideas down as you go
• Self-reflect: watch out for community groupthink / bias
• Answer:
– Weaknesses:
» Implicit assumptions; experimental / analytical errors; missing
citations
– Strengths:
» Presentation technique; support for conclusions; internal efficacy
Linköping, 5 Jun 13 27
Keshav, 2012Tutorial on reviewing
28. How to review (4)
• Now add reviewing-specific steps:
– Scoring according to reviewing template
– Writing “Remarks to authors”:
• Briefly summarize paper in own words
• State what you think contribution(s) are:
– Not those stated by author(s)
• Give specific comments based on jottings / margin notes:
– Separate major points from minor ones (eg typos)
– By relevance; significance; originality; validity; clarity
– Justifying your scores
• Conclude comments (eg summarize good & bad points)
• Recommend modifications
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
28
Roscoe, 2007
29. How to review (5)
• Approaches to reviewing own paper:
1. Write paper & then review it, modifying as needed
2. Write paper, already building in information reviewer needs
• I prefer 2nd
approach (next 6 slides)
• Mindset: Reviewer is always right!
– True: modify as reviewer recommends (Relevance,
Significance, Originality, & Validity)
– False: reviewer misunderstood because draft paper is poorly
expressed; express more clearly (Clarity)
• You’ll still get Remarks to Authors:
– But they should be fewer and less major
Linköping, 5 Jun 13 29
Tutorial on reviewing
30. How to review (6)
• How I plan a paper (1/6):
– Look at Call For Papers
– Have I done research that is worth presenting?
• If none, STOP
– Which topic / track does it fit into?
• If none, STOP
– What message do I want to give?
• Sketch story (5 plus/minus 2 bullets)
– Write single sentence describing purpose of paper:
• “The purpose of this paper is to present / survey / show ...”
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
30
31. How to review (7)
• How I plan a paper (2/6):
– Extract title from purpose of paper:
• This must “sell” your paper!
Eg “Tweak the tweet: leveraging proliferation with a prescriptive syntax
to support citizen reporting” (Starbird & Stamberger, ISCRAM 2010)
– Extract top-level headings from story:
• Don’t forget 5 plus/minus 2:
1.Introduction
2.Relevant theory
3.Experiment
4.Discussion
5.Conclusions & Further Research
Linköping, 5 Jun 13 31
Tutorial on reviewing
32. How to review (8)
• How I plan a paper (3/6):
– Expand 1. Introduction:
1.1 Background (or Motivation)
– Identifies “gap” in current Body of Knowledge
– Motivates why research is worth doing
– Shows relevance to conference & topic / track
– Outlines what paper covers, eg
“This paper focuses on technical capabilities for cyber warfare.”
1.2 Purpose & scope
– Insert one-sentence purpose here
– Scope is what your research & this paper does not include, eg
“Legal issues are outside the scope of this paper.”
1.3 Paper structure (or Layout)
– So reader knows what to expect (sections, appendices)
Linköping, 5 Jun 13 32
Tutorial on reviewing
33. How to review (9)
• How I plan a paper (4/6):
– Expand 3. Experiment:
Eg 3.1 Design; 3.2 Execution; 3.3 Results & analysis
– Expand 5. Conclusions & Further Research:
(5.1) Summary
– Not same as Abstract
(5.2) Contribution(s)
– Just most important ones
– Don’t overstate
(5.3) Limitations
– From method used
– From what is outside scope
(5.4) Further research
Linköping, 5 Jun 13 33
Tutorial on reviewing
34. How to review (10)
• How I plan a paper (5/6):
– Allocate page budget (see CFP or template for limit):
– Write Abstract:
• Note word limit (in CFP, author instructions, or template):
– Two-thirds background & motivation:
» Conclude with one-sentence purpose of paper
– One-third (intended) structure of paper
Linköping, 5 Jun 13 34
Title, abstract & keywords ½ page or 5%
Introduction 5%
Conclusions & Further Research 5%
References 10%
(other sections) divide up 75%
Tutorial on reviewing
35. How to review (11)
• How I plan a paper (6/6):
– Write one-sentence objective for each section:
1. Introduction
“The objective of this section is to describe the background,
motivate the research, state the purpose and scope of the
paper, and outline its structure.”
2. Relevant theory
“The objective of this section is to summarize the theory
relevant to the content of this paper.”
• N.B. To guide writing only; may be deleted once written
– Allocate (sub-) sections to co-authors (if any):
• In consultation, taking into account roles & abilities
Linköping, 5 Jun 13 35
Tutorial on reviewing
36. Key resources (1)
• Overviews (recommended):
– RIN, 2010. Peer Review: A guide for researchers. Research
Information Network (March), http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-
work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/peer-
review-guide-researchers. Accessed 2 May 13. *
– Wikipedia. 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review.
Accessed 2 May 2013
– Rowland, F. 2002. The Peer Review Process: A report to the
JISC Scholarly Communications Group.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/rowland.pdf.
Accessed 2 May 2013. *
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
40
37. Key resources (2)
• Papers/articles (1/3):
– Calcagno, V., Demoinet, E., Gollner, K., Guidi, L., Ruths, D. & de
Mazancourt, C. 2012. Flows of Research Manuscripts Among
Scientific Journals Reveal Hidden Submission Patterns. Science
Magazine, 338, 1065-9 (November)
– Cormode, G. 2008. How NOT to Review a Paper: the tools and
techniques of the adversarial reviewer. SIGMOD Record, 37, 4. *
– Griswold, W.G. (not dated). How to Read an Engineering Research
Paper. http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~wgg/CSE210/howtoread.html. *
• See also link to paperform.pdf. *
– Hill, S. & Provost, F. 2003. The Myth of the Double Blind Review?
Author identification using only citations. SIGKDD Explorations, 5,
3, 179-184
– Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E. & Davidoff, F. 2002. Effects of
Editorial Peer Review: A systematic review. JAMA, 287, 2784-6
Linköping, 5 Jun 13 41
Tutorial on reviewing
38. Key resources (3)
• Papers/articles (2/3):
– Kershav, S. 2012. How to Read a Paper.
http://blizzard.cs.uwaterloo.ca/keshav/home/Papers/data/07/paper-
reading.pdf. (June 26). *
• See Ian McLean’s 2012 Literature Review Matrix, based on Kershav, at
http://www.psychologyinc.org/2012/06/literature-review-matrix.html. *
– Mahoney, M.J. 1977. Publication Prejudices: An experimental study
of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 1, 2, 161-175
– McCook, A. 2006. Is Peer Review Broken? The Scientist Magazine
(February 1)
– Roberts. 1999. Scholarly Publishing, Peer Review and the Internet.
First Monday, 4, 4 (5 April)
– Roscoe, T. 2007. Writing Reviews for System Conferences.
http://people.inf.ethz.ch/troscoe/pubs/review-writing.pdf. *
Linköping, 5 Jun 13 42
Tutorial on reviewing
39. Key resources (4)
• Papers/articles (3/3):
– Smith, R. 2006. Peer Review: A flawed process at the heart of
science and journals. J R Soc Med, 99, 178-182
– Spier, R. 2002. The History of the Peer Review Process. Trends in
Biotechnology, 20, 8, 357-8 (August)
– Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Smith, R. & Black, N. 1998.
Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review: A
randomized trial. JAMA, 280, 3, 234-7
– Walt, S.M. 2013. On Writing Well. Foreign Policy (February 15).
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/02/15/on_writing_well. *
• Itself an example of good writing.
– Weiss, R. 2005. Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct: Degrees of
deteption vary in poll. Washington Post (June 9)
Linköping, 5 Jun 13 43
Tutorial on reviewing
40. Key resources (5)
• Journals:
– Learned Publishing
– Journal of Scholarly Publishing
– Journal of American Society for Information Science
– Journal of Documentation
• Bibliography:
– Bailey, C.W. 2011. Scholarly Electronic Publishing
Bibliography. www.digital-scholarship.org/sepb/. Version 80
(30 November), accessed 2 May 13
• Learned society:
– Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
(ALPSP): www.alpsp.org. Accessed 2 May 13
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
44
41. Key resources (6)
• Books:
– Peek, R.P. & Newby, G.B. (eds). 1996. Scholarly Publishing: The
electronic frontier. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
– Page, G., Campbell, R. & Meadows, A.J. 1997. Journal Publishing.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
– Meadows, A.J. 1998. Communicating Research. Academic Press,
San Diego, CA
– Tenopir, C. & King, D.W. 2000. Towards Electronic Journals:
Realities for scientists, librarians and publishers. SLA Publishing,
Washington DC
– Fredrikson, E.H. (ed). 2001. A Century of Scientific Publishing. IOS
Publishing, Amsterdam, NL
– Abel, R.E. & Newlin, L.W. (eds). 2002. Scholarly Publishing: Books,
journals, publishers, and libraries in the twentieth century. John
Wiley & Sons, New York
Linköping, 5 Jun 13 45
Tutorial on reviewing
42. Key resources (7)
• Wikipedia (English, all accessed 2 May 13):
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-reviewed_scientific_journal
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_journal
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_journal
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_authorship
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_publishing
• See also Scholarly paper and Peer review sections
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_(publishing)
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review_failure
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
Linköping, 5 Jun 13
Tutorial on reviewing
46
43. Exercise for listener
• “Beer versus science” as example of open reviewing:
– Grim, T. 2008. A Possible Role of Social Activity to Explain
Differences in Publication Output Among Ecologists. Oikos, 177,
484-7. http://www.zoologie.upol.cz/osoby/Grim/Grim_Oikos_2008.pdf. *
• Inverse linear relation between beer input and publications output
– Mack, C.A. 2008. In Defense of Beer-Drinking Scientists. (March 21).
http://life.lithoguru.com/index.php?itemid=119. *
– Mack, C.A. 2008. In Defense of my Defense of Beer-Drinking
Scientists. (March 27). http://life.lithoguru.com/index.php?itemid=120. *
– Mack, C.A. 2008. More on Beer-Drinking Scientists: A response to Dr
Grim. (April 9). http://life.lithoguru.com/index.php?itemid=121. *
– Van Noorden, R. 2010. Make Mine a Double. (Sep 15).
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2010/09/make_mine_a_double.html
• Let’s do field research!
Linköping, 5 Jun 13 47
Tutorial on reviewing
44. Any questions?
Tim Grant
Retired But Active Researcher (R-BAR)
tim.grant.iscram@gmail.com
+31 (0)638 193 749
With thanks to:
Julie Dugdale, Simon French, Mark S Pfaff, Murray Turoff,
Arien vd Wal