Importance of the peer review process in scientific publications - proposed way of working for a new journal
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55779/ng1115Keywords:
double blind, manuscript submission, preliminary reviewAbstract
Typically, in scientific publications, peer review processes are used to maintain the quality standards of the research activity and its results presented in manuscripts submitted for publication, to improve performance, relevance and give them credibility. The peer review helps the publisher (editor-in-chief and editors, respectively the editorial board) decide whether the submissions should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions (minor or major), or rejected. For many journals, all manuscripts submitted are subjected to a double-blind peer-review process, in which the authors and reviewers’ identities are kept secret from each other. The goal of double-blind peer review is for submitted papers to be judged on their scientific merit alone, and thus reducing publication bias (minimizing bias) and protecting identities. The double-blind peer-review model implies that the author's name and affiliation are not revealed to reviewers, and, in turn, the reviewers' name or any other information is never disclosed to the author or other reviewers of the manuscript. In order to ensure the quality of the publications, editors require that the reviewers have expert knowledge in their fields of research and have authored a substantial number of peer-reviewed publications. The selection of reviewers is the responsibility of the editor-in-chief, the editors and the editorial board, respectively.
Metrics
References
Dhillon P (2021). How to be a good peer reviewer of scientific manuscripts. The FEBS Journal https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.15705 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.15705
Emile SH (2021). Interactive platform for peer review: A proposal to improve the current peer review system. World Journal of Clinical Cases 9(6):1247-1250. https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v9/i6/1247.htm DOI: https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v9.i6.1247
Eriksson P, Altermann W, Catuneanu O (2005). Some general advice for writing a scientific paper. Journal of African Earth Sciences 41(4):285-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2005.06.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2005.06.001
Fossen H (2020). Writing papers with an emphasis on structural geology and tectonics: advices and warnings. Brazilian Journal of Geology 49(4). https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-4889201920190109 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-4889201920190109
Foster C, Wager E, Marchington J, Patel M, Banner S, Kennard NC, … Stacey R & the GPCAP Working Group (2019). Good practice for conference abstracts and presentations: GPCAP. Research Integrity and Peer Review 4(11). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0070-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0070-x
Gannon F (2001). The essential role of peer review. EMBO Reports 2:743. https://doi.org/10.1093/embo-reports/kve188 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/embo-reports/kve188
Gemayel R (2016). How to write a scientific paper. The FEBS Journal 283:3882-3885. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13918 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13918
Mack CA (2018). How to write a good scientific paper. Washington, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE), 108 p. https://doi.org/10.1117/3.2317707 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1117/3.2317707
Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D, Jacques DC, Waldner F, Mietchen D, … Colomb J (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research 6:1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.2
Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD (2017). Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(48):12708-12713. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Open Access, Copyright, and Licensing
All content published in Nova Geodesia is made immediately available on an open-access basis under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
Authors retain copyright in their published work. By submitting and publishing an article in the journal, the authors grant Nova Geodesia and its publisher, the Society of Land Measurements and Cadastre from Transylvania (SMTCT), a non-exclusive right to publish, distribute, reproduce, archive, preserve, and disseminate the article in all formats and media.
Under the CC BY 4.0 license, users may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, link to, adapt, and otherwise reuse the published content for any lawful purpose, including commercial use, provided that appropriate credit is given to the authors and the original publication, a link to the license is provided, and any changes are indicated.
The full terms of the license are available at:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce any third-party material that is not covered by the article’s CC BY 4.0 license.
No submission fee, article processing charge, publication fee, or other mandatory publication charge is imposed by the journal.





























