Background Early detection with screening mammography can potentially reduce breast cancer mortality rates. To achieve an efficient screening, a peer review system provides a compensatory double-check reviewing, will ...Background Early detection with screening mammography can potentially reduce breast cancer mortality rates. To achieve an efficient screening, a peer review system provides a compensatory double-check reviewing, will hopefully to prevent the omission of detectable lesions and reduce unnecessary recall. Methods In 2009, 4643 initial mammographic screenings reported by 74 screening radiologists had negative results with a recall rate of less than 5%. In the same year, 2538 initial positives screened by 18 screening radiologists had a recall rate higher than 15%. Those 7181 randomized screenings were evenly distributed for reassessment by 39 reviewing radiologists. The disagreement of assessments between the reviewers and screening radiologists was recorded. The differential rate was defined as the number of the disagreements divided by the number of audited films reviewed by a screening radiologist. The equality of the differential rates for each screening radiologists with negative and positive assessments was compared by a Chi-square test. The performance of the 39 auditors was measured by the Kendalrs tau statistic. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results The mean differential rate for screening radiologists of negative assessments was 6.7% （P=0.588）, while 35.0% for positive assessments were significant （P 〈0.001）. The result indicated that most of the initial negative assessments reported by the screening radiologists were generally accepted by the reviewers but not the positive assessments. With respect to the 39 reviewers, there was no significant evidence for the association of the difference rates between negative and positive assessments. Nine reviewers were found to have their differential rate for negative and positive assessments larger than the average of the population. Eleven reviewers were found to have their differential rates smaller than the average for both. Thirteen reviewers had their differential rates smaller than the average for negative assessments but larger than the average for positive assessments. The opposite condition was found for six reviewers. The Kendall＇s tau statistic was 0.038 （P=0.735）. Conclusions Reviewers usually agreed with the opinion of the initial screening doctors who reported negative findings. Therefore, a 5% recall rate as the lower range of reviewing negatives may be still too high. The recall rate of more than 15% was significantly related to improper interpretation, especially when the differential rate is 25% or higher, a warning to the underperforming screening radiologist is recommended. An ideal reviewer should interpret films independently. Reviewers with tendencies to be followers or contrarians should not be enrolled in the reviewing system.展开更多
Editor-in Chief:Sung Keun Lee Managing Editor:Heejung Kim Associated Editors:Hema Achyuthan,Laia Alegret,Kristine Asch,Margaret Brocx,Elizabeth Catlos,Chee-Ming Chan,Giuseppe Di Capua,Sabina Dolenec,Andrea Festa,Stanl...Editor-in Chief:Sung Keun Lee Managing Editor:Heejung Kim Associated Editors:Hema Achyuthan,Laia Alegret,Kristine Asch,Margaret Brocx,Elizabeth Catlos,Chee-Ming Chan,Giuseppe Di Capua,Sabina Dolenec,Andrea Festa,Stanley Finney,Kathleen Histon,Gurmeet Kaur,Osamu Kazaoka,Heejung Kim,Jin-Yong Lee,Brian Marker,Victor Mocanu,Nellia Mutemeri,Maria Dolores Pereira,Maria Rose Petrizzo,Mihail Popescu,Brian Pratt,Elizabeth Rovere,Reimar Seltmann,Afroz Ahmad Shahd,Clara Vasconcelos,Wenjiao Xaio In the ever-evolving landscape of academic publishing,the peer review process remains the cornerstone of integrity,rigor,and scholarly excellence.At the heart of this process are our peer reviewers—dedicated experts who generously volunteer their time and expertise to ensure that every episode we publish meets the highest academic standards.展开更多
The Editorial Office of Water Science and Engineering would like to express their sincere appreciation to the academic editors including Prof.Carlo Gualtieri from University of Napoli Federico Ⅱ,Italy,Prof.Guo-qing W...The Editorial Office of Water Science and Engineering would like to express their sincere appreciation to the academic editors including Prof.Carlo Gualtieri from University of Napoli Federico Ⅱ,Italy,Prof.Guo-qing Wang and Prof.Zhong-zhi Fu from Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute,China,and Prof.Yan-hui Ao,Prof.Ching-sheng Huang,Prof.Guang-qiu Jin,Prof.Bin Xu,Prof.Sai-yu Yuan,Prof.Zeng Zhou,Prof.Bo Chen,and Prof.Da-wei Guan from Hohai Uiversity,China,for their great effort and contribution to WSE in the year 2024.展开更多
Physics Letters(CPL)is a peer-reviewed,international and multidisciplinary journal sponsored by the Chinese Physical Society(CPS)and Institute of Physics,CAS,and hosted online by IOP Publishing Ltd.Launched in 1984 as...Physics Letters(CPL)is a peer-reviewed,international and multidisciplinary journal sponsored by the Chinese Physical Society(CPS)and Institute of Physics,CAS,and hosted online by IOP Publishing Ltd.Launched in 1984 as the flagship journal of CPS,CPL has become one of the most prestigious periodicals published in China,and been among the good choices for worldwide physicists to disseminate their most important breakthroughs.Nowadays it is dedicated to build an internationally recognized platform for researchers to publish original research works in all the branches of fundamental,applied,and interdisciplinary physics.展开更多
Peer review, which incorporates the U.S. ideology of individualism, is regarded as an effective tool in writing classes for improving students' writing proficiency and fostering their critical writing/revising ski...Peer review, which incorporates the U.S. ideology of individualism, is regarded as an effective tool in writing classes for improving students' writing proficiency and fostering their critical writing/revising skills (Ramanathan& Atkinson, 1999). Collectivism seems to be an impediment in peer reviewing according to Ramanathan&Atkinson (1999); however, it may not be the case due to the different contexts or cultural beliefs that students carry with.展开更多
Are you a student at a higher institution or a graduate who has published his/her first paper in the Journal of Forestry Research or another legitimate scientific journal?If yes,this paper is written specifically for ...Are you a student at a higher institution or a graduate who has published his/her first paper in the Journal of Forestry Research or another legitimate scientific journal?If yes,this paper is written specifically for you since you may soon start receiving invitations to act as a referee.If you are an early career reviewer,you may still find this paper enlightening.Based on his experience,a senior editor summarizes some critical information that,in his view,you may need to know.He provides nine main suggestions to have on your radar,and discusses what you should do or not do as a peer reviewer.展开更多
The Editorial Office of Water Science and Engineering would like to express their sincere appreciation to the following peer reviewers for their selfless devotion of time and energy to the journal in the year 2012：
Neural Regeneration Research （NRR, ISSN 1675-5374, CN11-5422/R）, an English language journal published in China every ten days, is dedicated to presenting peer-reviewed, evidenced based scholarly research in neurore...Neural Regeneration Research （NRR, ISSN 1675-5374, CN11-5422/R）, an English language journal published in China every ten days, is dedicated to presenting peer-reviewed, evidenced based scholarly research in neuroregeneration, including neural stem cells, nerve tissue engineering, gene therapy, and traditional Chinese medicine.展开更多
Purpose: To understand how authors and reviewers are accepting and embracing Open Peer Review(OPR), one of the newest innovations in the Open Science movement.Design/methodology/approach: This research collected and a...Purpose: To understand how authors and reviewers are accepting and embracing Open Peer Review(OPR), one of the newest innovations in the Open Science movement.Design/methodology/approach: This research collected and analyzed data from the Open Access journal Peer J over its first three years(2013–2016). Web data were scraped, cleaned, and structured using several Web tools and programs. The structured data were imported into a relational database. Data analyses were conducted using analytical tools as well as programs developed by the researchers.Findings: Peer J, which supports optional OPR, has a broad international representation of authors and referees. Approximately 73.89% of articles provide full review histories. Of the articles with published review histories, 17.61% had identities of all reviewers and 52.57% had at least one signed reviewer. In total, 43.23% of all reviews were signed. The observed proportions of signed reviews have been relatively stable over the period since the Journal’s inception.Research limitations: This research is constrained by the availability of the peer review history data. Some peer reviews were not available when the authors opted out of publishing their review histories. The anonymity of reviewers made it impossible to give an accurate count of reviewers who contributed to the review process. Practical implications: These findings shed light on the current characteristics of OPR. Given the policy that authors are encouraged to make their articles’ review history public and referees are encouraged to sign their review reports, the three years of Peer J review data demonstrate that there is still some reluctance by authors to make their reviews public and by reviewers to identify themselves. Originality/value: This is the first study to closely examine Peer J as an example of an OPR model journal. As Open Science moves further towards open research, OPR is a final and critical component. Research in this area must identify the best policies and paths towards a transparent and open peer review process for scientific communication.展开更多
Based on the practice and analysis of peer review in nuclear power plants, the models on the Pareto improvement of peer review, governance entropy decrease of peer review are set up and discussed. The result shows tha...Based on the practice and analysis of peer review in nuclear power plants, the models on the Pareto improvement of peer review, governance entropy decrease of peer review are set up and discussed. The result shows that the peer review of nuclear power is actually a process of Pareto improvement, and of governance entropy decrease. It’s a process of improvement of the enterprise operational efficiency accordingly.展开更多
The Editorial Office of Water Science and Engineering would like to express their sincere appreciation to the following peer reviewers for their devotion of time and energy to the journal in the year 2016.
The Editorial Office of Water Science and Engineering would like to express their sincere appreciation to the following peer reviewers for their devotion of time and energy to the journal in the year 2015:
The editorial Office of Water Science and Engineering would like to give their special thanks to the following peer reviewers for their selfless devotion of time and energy to the peer review processes from 2008 to 2...The editorial Office of Water Science and Engineering would like to give their special thanks to the following peer reviewers for their selfless devotion of time and energy to the peer review processes from 2008 to 2011：展开更多
Aim Journal of Shenzhen University Science and Engineering,a bimonthly journal with its first issuing in 1984,is now administered and sponsored by Shenzhen University and published by the Science Press.It is a peer-re...Aim Journal of Shenzhen University Science and Engineering,a bimonthly journal with its first issuing in 1984,is now administered and sponsored by Shenzhen University and published by the Science Press.It is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original papers of high scientific value.Innovation is always the starting point for the progress of our journal.We pay more attention to funded projects and major topics during manuscript organization to present the latest scientific and engineering achievements in China,as well as innovations in Shenzhen and Shenzhen University.展开更多
1AIM AND SCOPE Geoscience Frontiers(GSF)publishes peer reviewed research articles and reviews in interdisciplinary fields of Earth and Planetary Sciences.
Aims and Scope Asian Journal of Social Pharmacy(AJSP)is peer-reviewed quarterly English journal jointly hosted by Herbal Font Pharmaceutical Limited and Shenyang Pharmaceutical University.AJSP is dedicated to providin...Aims and Scope Asian Journal of Social Pharmacy(AJSP)is peer-reviewed quarterly English journal jointly hosted by Herbal Font Pharmaceutical Limited and Shenyang Pharmaceutical University.AJSP is dedicated to providing researchers,pharmacists,administrators,and educators working within the field of pharmacy worldwide with a platform of communication in the advancement and development in social pharmacy.展开更多
ABOUT THIS JOURNAL Launched in 1988,the Chinese Journal of Chemical Physics (CJCP)is devoted to reporting new and original experimental and theoretical research on interdisciplinary areas,with chemistry and physics gr...ABOUT THIS JOURNAL Launched in 1988,the Chinese Journal of Chemical Physics (CJCP)is devoted to reporting new and original experimental and theoretical research on interdisciplinary areas,with chemistry and physics groundwork of interest to researchers,faculty and students domestic and abroad in the fields of chemistry,physics,material and biological sciences and their interdisciplinary areas.As one of the 24 peer-reviewed journals under the Chinese Physical Society (CPS),CJCP has been covered in ISI products (SCIE) as well as other major indexes.CJCP is currently a bimonthly journal,and it publishes in English with Chinese abstract as of 2006.展开更多
文摘Background Early detection with screening mammography can potentially reduce breast cancer mortality rates. To achieve an efficient screening, a peer review system provides a compensatory double-check reviewing, will hopefully to prevent the omission of detectable lesions and reduce unnecessary recall. Methods In 2009, 4643 initial mammographic screenings reported by 74 screening radiologists had negative results with a recall rate of less than 5%. In the same year, 2538 initial positives screened by 18 screening radiologists had a recall rate higher than 15%. Those 7181 randomized screenings were evenly distributed for reassessment by 39 reviewing radiologists. The disagreement of assessments between the reviewers and screening radiologists was recorded. The differential rate was defined as the number of the disagreements divided by the number of audited films reviewed by a screening radiologist. The equality of the differential rates for each screening radiologists with negative and positive assessments was compared by a Chi-square test. The performance of the 39 auditors was measured by the Kendalrs tau statistic. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results The mean differential rate for screening radiologists of negative assessments was 6.7% （P=0.588）, while 35.0% for positive assessments were significant （P 〈0.001）. The result indicated that most of the initial negative assessments reported by the screening radiologists were generally accepted by the reviewers but not the positive assessments. With respect to the 39 reviewers, there was no significant evidence for the association of the difference rates between negative and positive assessments. Nine reviewers were found to have their differential rate for negative and positive assessments larger than the average of the population. Eleven reviewers were found to have their differential rates smaller than the average for both. Thirteen reviewers had their differential rates smaller than the average for negative assessments but larger than the average for positive assessments. The opposite condition was found for six reviewers. The Kendall＇s tau statistic was 0.038 （P=0.735）. Conclusions Reviewers usually agreed with the opinion of the initial screening doctors who reported negative findings. Therefore, a 5% recall rate as the lower range of reviewing negatives may be still too high. The recall rate of more than 15% was significantly related to improper interpretation, especially when the differential rate is 25% or higher, a warning to the underperforming screening radiologist is recommended. An ideal reviewer should interpret films independently. Reviewers with tendencies to be followers or contrarians should not be enrolled in the reviewing system.
文摘Editor-in Chief:Sung Keun Lee Managing Editor:Heejung Kim Associated Editors:Hema Achyuthan,Laia Alegret,Kristine Asch,Margaret Brocx,Elizabeth Catlos,Chee-Ming Chan,Giuseppe Di Capua,Sabina Dolenec,Andrea Festa,Stanley Finney,Kathleen Histon,Gurmeet Kaur,Osamu Kazaoka,Heejung Kim,Jin-Yong Lee,Brian Marker,Victor Mocanu,Nellia Mutemeri,Maria Dolores Pereira,Maria Rose Petrizzo,Mihail Popescu,Brian Pratt,Elizabeth Rovere,Reimar Seltmann,Afroz Ahmad Shahd,Clara Vasconcelos,Wenjiao Xaio In the ever-evolving landscape of academic publishing,the peer review process remains the cornerstone of integrity,rigor,and scholarly excellence.At the heart of this process are our peer reviewers—dedicated experts who generously volunteer their time and expertise to ensure that every episode we publish meets the highest academic standards.
文摘The Editorial Office of Water Science and Engineering would like to express their sincere appreciation to the academic editors including Prof.Carlo Gualtieri from University of Napoli Federico Ⅱ,Italy,Prof.Guo-qing Wang and Prof.Zhong-zhi Fu from Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute,China,and Prof.Yan-hui Ao,Prof.Ching-sheng Huang,Prof.Guang-qiu Jin,Prof.Bin Xu,Prof.Sai-yu Yuan,Prof.Zeng Zhou,Prof.Bo Chen,and Prof.Da-wei Guan from Hohai Uiversity,China,for their great effort and contribution to WSE in the year 2024.
文摘Physics Letters(CPL)is a peer-reviewed,international and multidisciplinary journal sponsored by the Chinese Physical Society(CPS)and Institute of Physics,CAS,and hosted online by IOP Publishing Ltd.Launched in 1984 as the flagship journal of CPS,CPL has become one of the most prestigious periodicals published in China,and been among the good choices for worldwide physicists to disseminate their most important breakthroughs.Nowadays it is dedicated to build an internationally recognized platform for researchers to publish original research works in all the branches of fundamental,applied,and interdisciplinary physics.
文摘Peer review, which incorporates the U.S. ideology of individualism, is regarded as an effective tool in writing classes for improving students' writing proficiency and fostering their critical writing/revising skills (Ramanathan& Atkinson, 1999). Collectivism seems to be an impediment in peer reviewing according to Ramanathan&Atkinson (1999); however, it may not be the case due to the different contexts or cultural beliefs that students carry with.
基金The author acknowledges support from The Startup Foundation for Introducing Talent of Nanjing University of Information Science&Technology(NUIST),Nanjing,China(Grant No.003080).
文摘Are you a student at a higher institution or a graduate who has published his/her first paper in the Journal of Forestry Research or another legitimate scientific journal?If yes,this paper is written specifically for you since you may soon start receiving invitations to act as a referee.If you are an early career reviewer,you may still find this paper enlightening.Based on his experience,a senior editor summarizes some critical information that,in his view,you may need to know.He provides nine main suggestions to have on your radar,and discusses what you should do or not do as a peer reviewer.
文摘The Editorial Office of Water Science and Engineering would like to express their sincere appreciation to the following peer reviewers for their selfless devotion of time and energy to the journal in the year 2012：
文摘Neural Regeneration Research （NRR, ISSN 1675-5374, CN11-5422/R）, an English language journal published in China every ten days, is dedicated to presenting peer-reviewed, evidenced based scholarly research in neuroregeneration, including neural stem cells, nerve tissue engineering, gene therapy, and traditional Chinese medicine.
文摘Purpose: To understand how authors and reviewers are accepting and embracing Open Peer Review(OPR), one of the newest innovations in the Open Science movement.Design/methodology/approach: This research collected and analyzed data from the Open Access journal Peer J over its first three years(2013–2016). Web data were scraped, cleaned, and structured using several Web tools and programs. The structured data were imported into a relational database. Data analyses were conducted using analytical tools as well as programs developed by the researchers.Findings: Peer J, which supports optional OPR, has a broad international representation of authors and referees. Approximately 73.89% of articles provide full review histories. Of the articles with published review histories, 17.61% had identities of all reviewers and 52.57% had at least one signed reviewer. In total, 43.23% of all reviews were signed. The observed proportions of signed reviews have been relatively stable over the period since the Journal’s inception.Research limitations: This research is constrained by the availability of the peer review history data. Some peer reviews were not available when the authors opted out of publishing their review histories. The anonymity of reviewers made it impossible to give an accurate count of reviewers who contributed to the review process. Practical implications: These findings shed light on the current characteristics of OPR. Given the policy that authors are encouraged to make their articles’ review history public and referees are encouraged to sign their review reports, the three years of Peer J review data demonstrate that there is still some reluctance by authors to make their reviews public and by reviewers to identify themselves. Originality/value: This is the first study to closely examine Peer J as an example of an OPR model journal. As Open Science moves further towards open research, OPR is a final and critical component. Research in this area must identify the best policies and paths towards a transparent and open peer review process for scientific communication.
文摘Based on the practice and analysis of peer review in nuclear power plants, the models on the Pareto improvement of peer review, governance entropy decrease of peer review are set up and discussed. The result shows that the peer review of nuclear power is actually a process of Pareto improvement, and of governance entropy decrease. It’s a process of improvement of the enterprise operational efficiency accordingly.
文摘The Editorial Office of Water Science and Engineering would like to express their sincere appreciation to the following peer reviewers for their devotion of time and energy to the journal in the year 2016.
文摘The Editorial Office of Water Science and Engineering would like to express their sincere appreciation to the following peer reviewers for their devotion of time and energy to the journal in the year 2015:
文摘The editorial Office of Water Science and Engineering would like to give their special thanks to the following peer reviewers for their selfless devotion of time and energy to the peer review processes from 2008 to 2011：
文摘Aim Journal of Shenzhen University Science and Engineering,a bimonthly journal with its first issuing in 1984,is now administered and sponsored by Shenzhen University and published by the Science Press.It is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original papers of high scientific value.Innovation is always the starting point for the progress of our journal.We pay more attention to funded projects and major topics during manuscript organization to present the latest scientific and engineering achievements in China,as well as innovations in Shenzhen and Shenzhen University.
文摘1AIM AND SCOPE Geoscience Frontiers(GSF)publishes peer reviewed research articles and reviews in interdisciplinary fields of Earth and Planetary Sciences.
文摘Aims and Scope Asian Journal of Social Pharmacy(AJSP)is peer-reviewed quarterly English journal jointly hosted by Herbal Font Pharmaceutical Limited and Shenyang Pharmaceutical University.AJSP is dedicated to providing researchers,pharmacists,administrators,and educators working within the field of pharmacy worldwide with a platform of communication in the advancement and development in social pharmacy.
文摘ABOUT THIS JOURNAL Launched in 1988,the Chinese Journal of Chemical Physics (CJCP)is devoted to reporting new and original experimental and theoretical research on interdisciplinary areas,with chemistry and physics groundwork of interest to researchers,faculty and students domestic and abroad in the fields of chemistry,physics,material and biological sciences and their interdisciplinary areas.As one of the 24 peer-reviewed journals under the Chinese Physical Society (CPS),CJCP has been covered in ISI products (SCIE) as well as other major indexes.CJCP is currently a bimonthly journal,and it publishes in English with Chinese abstract as of 2006.
