Improving Submissions to Scholarly Journals via Peer Review
Abstract
Due to their commitment to better publishing standards and desire to improve their journals’ academic reputation, editorial boards, editors, and editorial teams seek to refine submissions they receive. Though, the peer review process serves as a filtering and assessment system, it is believed to greatly contribute to better quality of scholarly journals. Based on the analysis of the peer review internationally, the JLE editors focus on the peer review in the Journal of Language and Education, sharing their experience with the JLE potential authors. The editorial contains some reflections on the efficacy of peer review in the JLE. Potential authors may find some tips as to how to interact with recommendations and criticism on part of their peer reviewers and to make their voices heard.
Downloads
References
Andersen, M. Z., Fonnes, S., & Rosenberg, J. (2021). Time from submission to publication varied widely for biomedical journals: A systematic review. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 37(6), 985-993. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2021.1905622
Das, M.G. (2016). Peer review for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies. Medical Journal Armed Forces India, 72, 172-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.02.014
Jawaid, S. A. (2004). Problems faced by editors of peer reviewed medical journals. Saudi Medical Journal, 25(1 Suppl), S21-25.
Johnson, C., & Green, B. (2009). Submitting manuscripts to biomedical journals: Common errors and helpful solutions. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 32(1), 1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.12.002
Peters, M. A., Brighouse, S., Tesar, M., Sturm, S., & Jackson, L. (2020). The open peer review experiment in Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT). Educational Philosophy and Theory,37(6), 975-983. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1846519
Price, B. (2014). Improving your journal article using feedback from peer review. Nursing Standard, 1987, 29(4), 43-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.184651910.7748/ns.29.4.43.e9101
Rigby, J., Cox, D., & Julian, K. (2018). Journal peer review: a bar or bridge? An analysis of a paper's revision history and turnaround time, and the effect on citation. Scientometrics, 114, 1087-1105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2630-5
Schoenwolf, G. C. (2013). Getting published well requires fulfilling editors' and reviewers' needs and desires. Development Growth and Differentiation, 55(9), 735-743. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dgd.12092
Schriger, D. L., Sinha, R., Schroter, S., Liu, P. Y., & Altman, D. G. (2006). From submission to publication: A retrospective review of the tables and figures in a cohort of randomized controlled trials submitted to the British medical journal. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 48(6), 750-756.e21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.06.017
Shoham, N., & Pitman, A. (2020). Open versus blind peer review: Is anonymity better than transparency? BJPsych Advances, 27(4), 247-254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2020.61
Steer, P. & Ernst, S. (2021). Peer review: Why, when and how. International of Cardiology Congenital Heart Disease, 2, 100083. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcchd.2021.100083
Zhang, D., Smith, R., & Lobo, S. (2020). Should you sign your reviews? Open peer review and review quality. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 45-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.5
Zheng, J. (2005). Try to improve journal quality by improving standards and editing process. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue = Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 14(2), 97-98.
Copyright (c) 2021 National Research University Higher School of Economics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the Copyright Notice.
