FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1629435880> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1629435880 endingPage "520" @default.
• W1629435880 startingPage "520" @default.
• W1629435880 abstract "Dear Dr. Toth:Regarding our manuscript “Can gender differences be evaluated in a rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) model of focal cerebral ischemia?”,1 I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me by phone on 11/17/2008 to address my concerns over the current system of manuscript review and status for Comparative Medicine. This follow-up letter includes a summary of the issues we discussed and the actions taken.I want to emphasize again that there were no issues regarding the peer review process itself. I have always felt that the peer review process improves the quality of my manuscripts. However, this is the first time in 15 years serving as a reviewer and submitting manuscripts as an author that I have encountered a dual review process involving peer review prior to acceptance of a manuscript and then an independent editorial review afterwards. You had indicated to me that this system has been in place for your journal for the past few years and that I was the first author to raise concerns about this dual review process.One of my major concerns was that there was no complete disclosure of this dual review system in either the instructions to the authors for your journal or in the acceptance letter I had received. The instructions to the authors indicated that all manuscripts are evaluated by three reviewers and that once a manuscript is accepted, a copyedited proof would be sent to the authors to allow review of suggested changes. The acceptance letter my coauthors and I had received in July had indicated that our manuscript had been accepted “in its current form for publication” and that 2 sets of proofs would be sent for review. Therefore when I received the first set of copyedited proofs requiring us to revisit issues already addressed during the peer review process before the manuscript would actually be published, it was a surprise. My coauthors and I didn't understand that acceptance of our manuscript after peer review was contingent upon how we would respond to an independent editorial review during the proof stages. I do appreciate that in response to our conversation, you and your staff will be revising author communications so that the nature of the dual review process will be fully disclosed to authors before and during the submission process.My other major concern had to do with your perspective that independent editorial review following acceptance of a manuscript after peer review strengthens the peer review process. I, however, feel that such a policy indicates lack of confidence in the peer review process since the editorial review occurs after acceptance of a manuscript and has the final standing even if it potentially over-rides or re-interprets the peer reviewers’ evaluations and comments. You had indicated that this second level of review was done in case there were issues overlooked by all three of the reviewers, “in particular with regard to the conclusions and their basis in data,” and to represent the concerns of the readership. Don't the three reviewers you and your editorial staff select for their expertise and assign to each manuscript represent the concerns of their peers who are the readers? You had also indicated that the editorial review was independent of the peer review process in that you had not read the reviewers’ comments or the authors’ response to the reviewers before your review. By performing such a level of review after manuscript acceptance, you are not only re-evaluating the authors’ work but also evaluating the efforts of the reviewers. You and I had agreed to disagree on this issue after our discussion.I had considered withdrawing this manuscript as well as another manuscript currently under peer review and submitting somewhere else because of how strongly I felt on this issue of peer review. You had indicated that you respected my dilemma and would not impede me from publishing elsewhere should I take this step. However, I decided to continue the review and publication process as much time and effort had already been invested in these manuscripts.As a reviewer, I put a lot of time and effort into the review of manuscripts and in training our residents and postdocs on the manuscript review process. These are responsibilities I take very seriously. It is therefore frustrating for me to learn that my efforts and others’ as reviewers for JAALAS and Comparative Medicine are likely viewed as incomplete and may be overlooked as a result of a second level of review at the editorial level after acceptance of a manuscript. Because of these concerns, I am requesting that I be removed from consideration as a prospective reviewer for JAALAS and Comparative Medicine.I want to thank you again for hearing me out and considering my concerns and perspectives on your journal's current system of manuscript review and status.Sincerely,Stephanie J Murphy, VMD, PhD, DACLAMOregon Health & Science University" @default.
• W1629435880 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1629435880 creator A5010899135 @default.
• W1629435880 date "2008-12-01" @default.
• W1629435880 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1629435880 title "Peer and Editorial Review of Submitted Manuscripts" @default.
• W1629435880 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2710750" @default.
• W1629435880 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W1629435880 type Work @default.
• W1629435880 sameAs 1629435880 @default.
• W1629435880 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1629435880 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1629435880 hasAuthorship W1629435880A5010899135 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConcept C138368954 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConcept C2778707766 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConceptScore W1629435880C138368954 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConceptScore W1629435880C138885662 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConceptScore W1629435880C15744967 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConceptScore W1629435880C17744445 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConceptScore W1629435880C199539241 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConceptScore W1629435880C2778707766 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConceptScore W1629435880C41895202 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConceptScore W1629435880C509550671 @default.
• W1629435880 hasConceptScore W1629435880C71924100 @default.
• W1629435880 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W1629435880 hasLocation W16294358801 @default.
• W1629435880 hasOpenAccess W1629435880 @default.
• W1629435880 hasPrimaryLocation W16294358801 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W114112503 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W1982079713 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W1999509893 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W2004619225 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W2006573713 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W2017792490 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W2029492384 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W2114843125 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W2125979136 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W2131626507 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W2133113549 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W2147071889 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W2157780454 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W2167661546 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W2231619927 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W2289031625 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W2289507146 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W2937997827 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W328772283 @default.
• W1629435880 hasRelatedWork W2763991900 @default.
• W1629435880 hasVolume "58" @default.
• W1629435880 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1629435880 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1629435880 magId "1629435880" @default.
• W1629435880 workType "article" @default.