FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1982079713> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1982079713 abstract "In the new millennia, the face of scientific publishing is changing with widespread access to the Internet and ever more open access in addition to traditional journals. Nowadays, a simple electronic literature search on almost any topic related to gerontological nursing can reveal an overwhelming number of publications. The question then becomes what is the high-quality information one can rely on? Traditional peer-reviewed resources, which are evaluated by experts working in the same field of inquiry, remain the main source of well-presented, high fidelity knowledge. Peer review does still have the potential to ‘go wrong’. One example of this is the recent Science article titled ‘Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?’ (Bohannon, 2013). Bohannon created a hoax scientific report and submitted it to 304 peer-reviewed, open-access journals. The paper on molecular innovations in cancer treatment was flooded with obvious logical mistakes and contradictions. Unfortunately, more than half of the journals accepted the manuscript for publication (Bohannon did immediately withdraw it). Only a tenth of the journals responded with comments indicating a thorough, quality review. Personally, we have both been approached by editors of journals we are reviewing for to complete an additional peer review of a questionable manuscript. Usually, the problem was that the previous reviewers did not focus their review to discuss the integrity of the manuscript or provided enough comments for editors to make an informed acceptance/rejection decision. Despite the potential of a flawed peer-review process, highquality peer review remains the ‘gold standard’ of scientific publishing integrity and accountability. Recognising the critical importance of a peer review, IJOPN is launching their new Peer Reviewer Guidelines to assist reviewers with providing a structured and meaningful manuscript review. In this editorial, we aim to underscore the benefits and value of peer review as we reflect on our experience as reviewers for the IJOPN. Most notably, getting an invitation to provide peer review on a manuscript is an honour and an opportunity to provide service to the scientific community. The invitation signifies that you have an advanced level of expertise with either or both a specific topic in the field of gerontological nursing and the method that the authors used in their study. The benefits of providing a comprehensive review are that you are making contributions to science and to the journal. Quality control occurs during the peer-review process, and the reviewer is the gatekeeper to the editorial board via the publication recommendations. Providing constructive criticism to authors, when needed, helps them fine tune their work before widespread dissemination. Personally, we find it rewarding as a peer reviewer to read through a revised manuscript that was strengthened based on the feedback provided to the authors. We both have received positive feedback on our manuscript reviews from editors of IJOPN and other journals for which we review. We have learned from experience that proper reviews take time and effort. It takes more than one read through of a manuscript to be able to provide a thorough critique of the work and give suggestions for improvement, if needed. Thoughtful reflection on manuscripts allows us to identify whether there are any breaks in the logic to be concerned about. Additionally, we both find it helpful to keep the journal mission available when providing a review. This way we can compare the manuscript to the mission of the journal to see if there is a good fit. We usually present our conclusions on the fit of the manuscript in one or two sentences in the manuscript review comments. Correspondence: Justine Sefcik, University of Pennsylvania, School of Nursing, 418 Curie Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. E-mail: jsefcik@nursing.upenn.edu" @default.
• W1982079713 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1982079713 creator A5021465135 @default.
• W1982079713 creator A5022865746 @default.
• W1982079713 date "2014-05-10" @default.
• W1982079713 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W1982079713 title "Peer reviewing: the benefits and value" @default.
• W1982079713 cites W2128186353 @default.
• W1982079713 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12047" @default.
• W1982079713 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24813720" @default.
• W1982079713 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W1982079713 type Work @default.
• W1982079713 sameAs 1982079713 @default.
• W1982079713 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1982079713 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1982079713 hasAuthorship W1982079713A5021465135 @default.
• W1982079713 hasAuthorship W1982079713A5022865746 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConcept C108827166 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConcept C110875604 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConcept C138368954 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConcept C151719136 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConceptScore W1982079713C108827166 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConceptScore W1982079713C110875604 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConceptScore W1982079713C111472728 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConceptScore W1982079713C119857082 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConceptScore W1982079713C136764020 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConceptScore W1982079713C138368954 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConceptScore W1982079713C138885662 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConceptScore W1982079713C151719136 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConceptScore W1982079713C15744967 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConceptScore W1982079713C17744445 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConceptScore W1982079713C199539241 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConceptScore W1982079713C2776291640 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConceptScore W1982079713C2779530757 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConceptScore W1982079713C39549134 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConceptScore W1982079713C41008148 @default.
• W1982079713 hasConceptScore W1982079713C71924100 @default.
• W1982079713 hasLocation W19820797131 @default.
• W1982079713 hasLocation W19820797132 @default.
• W1982079713 hasOpenAccess W1982079713 @default.
• W1982079713 hasPrimaryLocation W19820797131 @default.
• W1982079713 hasRelatedWork W1512675769 @default.
• W1982079713 hasRelatedWork W2007487931 @default.
• W1982079713 hasRelatedWork W2115099122 @default.
• W1982079713 hasRelatedWork W2164918422 @default.
• W1982079713 hasRelatedWork W2322415543 @default.
• W1982079713 hasRelatedWork W2322649837 @default.
• W1982079713 hasRelatedWork W2918827785 @default.
• W1982079713 hasRelatedWork W2994168266 @default.
• W1982079713 hasRelatedWork W3133998948 @default.
• W1982079713 hasRelatedWork W3157088131 @default.
• W1982079713 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1982079713 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1982079713 magId "1982079713" @default.
• W1982079713 workType "article" @default.