FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2912448889> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2912448889 endingPage "1" @default.
• W2912448889 startingPage "1" @default.
• W2912448889 abstract "The broad concepts of peer review are well understood: knowledgeable, objective, and clear-thinking individuals critically assessing work produced from a knowledgeable, objective, and clear-thinking position. The process cannot be without bias because our expertise and experience do produce bias, but the goal is to rise above the pejorative elements to deliver insightful evaluations. The system is not perfect, but when appropriately implemented, it can help to make any manuscript better. Even with the well-intentioned effort of authors, reviewers, and editors, many manuscripts will end up being rejected. This can be shocking to authors, particularly if they feel they did all the right things in trying to address reviewer concerns. Getting beyond the emotional response, however, is most productive. Many issues can lead to a reject decision: fatal flaws in research design or execution, inadequate development, unresolved concerns with interpretation or overstatement, an absence of relevant or meaningful insight, or poor journal fit. Frustration can mount if substantial revision effort is put into a manuscript before rejection. This frustration, though, can affect everyone. Authors might think about it only from their perspective, but the reviewer team will also have invested a substantial amount of effort. Although everyone saves time when fatally flawed or unsalvageable product is rejected quickly, it may take one or more iterations for critical flaws to be uncovered or an intractable state to be realized. Giving authors the benefit of the doubt with initial submissions is a service to them. If shortcomings can be adequately addressed through revision and no fatal flaws are uncovered, a manuscript may advance. If shortcomings cannot be adequately addressed, rejection is appropriate at any point in the process. If authors are convinced that a reject decision is not warranted, they may choose to submit elsewhere. The effort that went into reviewing and revising may still help the work succeed. Similarly, if insights gained through the back-and-forth help them decide that the work should not be published, the time of other reviewers can be saved. One of the misconceptions occasionally expressed is that a relationship with previous literature increases the publishability of work. This is not necessarily true. A lot of material gets published through inadequate oversight, be it in predatory journals that care only about collecting publication fees or through failed peer review. Replicating weak work is a poor choice and rejection a clear possibility. There is no justification for publication simply based on alignment with previously published work. The rejection of a manuscript can make some leery of further participation in research activity. A more productive approach, however, is to make the rejection a learning opportunity to strengthen future efforts. It is possible that rejection can ultimately improve scholarship more than having an inadequate manuscript accepted. This comes back to objectivity. Those who choose to stay engaged and grow from any experience may well become productive contributors and effective educators of the next generation." @default.
• W2912448889 created "2019-02-21" @default.
• W2912448889 creator A5018366336 @default.
• W2912448889 date "2019-03-01" @default.
• W2912448889 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2912448889 title "Rejection Under Peer Review" @default.
• W2912448889 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wem.2018.12.007" @default.
• W2912448889 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30712825" @default.
• W2912448889 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2912448889 type Work @default.
• W2912448889 sameAs 2912448889 @default.
• W2912448889 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2912448889 countsByYear W29124488892020 @default.
• W2912448889 countsByYear W29124488892021 @default.
• W2912448889 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2912448889 hasAuthorship W2912448889A5018366336 @default.
• W2912448889 hasBestOaLocation W29124488891 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConcept C12713177 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConcept C2777816766 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConceptScore W2912448889C111919701 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConceptScore W2912448889C12713177 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConceptScore W2912448889C154945302 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConceptScore W2912448889C15744967 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConceptScore W2912448889C17744445 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConceptScore W2912448889C199360897 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConceptScore W2912448889C199539241 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConceptScore W2912448889C2777816766 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConceptScore W2912448889C41008148 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConceptScore W2912448889C527412718 @default.
• W2912448889 hasConceptScore W2912448889C98045186 @default.
• W2912448889 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2912448889 hasLocation W29124488891 @default.
• W2912448889 hasLocation W29124488892 @default.
• W2912448889 hasOpenAccess W2912448889 @default.
• W2912448889 hasPrimaryLocation W29124488891 @default.
• W2912448889 hasRelatedWork W2031257924 @default.
• W2912448889 hasRelatedWork W2065891427 @default.
• W2912448889 hasRelatedWork W2095322754 @default.
• W2912448889 hasRelatedWork W2348261829 @default.
• W2912448889 hasRelatedWork W2394213361 @default.
• W2912448889 hasRelatedWork W2605852498 @default.
• W2912448889 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2912448889 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2912448889 hasRelatedWork W3133253874 @default.
• W2912448889 hasRelatedWork W4321506208 @default.
• W2912448889 hasVolume "30" @default.
• W2912448889 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2912448889 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2912448889 magId "2912448889" @default.
• W2912448889 workType "article" @default.