Here's our monthly look back at the top five most read papers from our journal European Science Editing in the month of September.
Interslavic: a new option for scientific publishing?
Issue: 44(3) August 2018. Viewpoint
Erik Tihelka
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/interslavic-a-new-option-for-scientific-publishing/
No Abstract
The art of reviewing journal articles and its advantages for reviewers
Issue: 44(1) February 2018. Essays
Gaurav Saini
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/the-art-of-reviewing-journal-articles-and-its-advantages-for-reviewers/
Abstract
Peer-review is one of the pillars of academic publishing and helps editors in selecting the best works. Reviewers serve as a jury that evaluates submitted manuscripts and helps fellow researchers to improve their work. Unfortunately, detailed instructions or dedicated courses for the best practices in manuscript reviewing are scarce. Then how should one go about reviewing a manuscript? More importantly, why should one serve as a reviewer? The aim of this essay is to answer both these questions by providing a step-by-step procedure for manuscript review and a list of advantages of being a reviewer.
A “basket of metrics”—the best support for understanding journal merit
Issue: 41(3) August 2015. Original articles
Lisa Colledge & Chris James
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/a-basket-of-metrics-the-best-support-for-understanding-journal-merit/
Abstract
Aim: To survey opinion of the assertion that useful metricbased input requires a “basket of metrics” to allow more varied and nuanced insights into merit than is possible by using one metric alone. Methods: A poll was conducted to survey opinions (N=204; average response rate=61%) within the international research community on using usage metrics in merit systems. Results: “Research is best quantified using multiple criteria” was selected by most (40%) respondents as the reason that usage metrics are valuable, and 95% of respondents indicated that they would be likely or very likely to use usage metrics in their assessments of research merit, if they had access to them. There was a similar degree of preference for simple and sophisticated usage metrics confirming that one size does not fit all, and that a onemetric approach to merit is insufficient. Conclusion: This survey demonstrates a clear willingness and a real appetite to use a “basket of metrics” to broaden the ways in which research merit can be detected and demonstrated.
English for Russian scientific purposes: tips to improve word use
Issue: 44(3) August 2018. EssaysDmitry Tychinin
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/english-for-russian-scientific-purposes-tips-to-improve-word-use/
Abstract
Worldwide dissemination of Russian science is impeded by scientists’ poor written English. A first step to better English is to cleanse manuscripts of faulty words. The faults discussed in this article are the overuse of active(ly), create, due to, etc, preparation, and study, as well as the misuse of allow, approbate, register, and scientific work(s). The discussion ends with a brief message to the Russian author.
Journal editors and data: the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
Issue: 44(3) August 2018. Editorial
Pippa Smart
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/journal-editors-and-data-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/
No Abstract
Interslavic: a new option for scientific publishing?
Issue: 44(3) August 2018. Viewpoint
Erik Tihelka
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/interslavic-a-new-option-for-scientific-publishing/
No Abstract
The art of reviewing journal articles and its advantages for reviewers
Issue: 44(1) February 2018. Essays
Gaurav Saini
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/the-art-of-reviewing-journal-articles-and-its-advantages-for-reviewers/
Abstract
Peer-review is one of the pillars of academic publishing and helps editors in selecting the best works. Reviewers serve as a jury that evaluates submitted manuscripts and helps fellow researchers to improve their work. Unfortunately, detailed instructions or dedicated courses for the best practices in manuscript reviewing are scarce. Then how should one go about reviewing a manuscript? More importantly, why should one serve as a reviewer? The aim of this essay is to answer both these questions by providing a step-by-step procedure for manuscript review and a list of advantages of being a reviewer.
A “basket of metrics”—the best support for understanding journal merit
Issue: 41(3) August 2015. Original articles
Lisa Colledge & Chris James
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/a-basket-of-metrics-the-best-support-for-understanding-journal-merit/
Abstract
Aim: To survey opinion of the assertion that useful metricbased input requires a “basket of metrics” to allow more varied and nuanced insights into merit than is possible by using one metric alone. Methods: A poll was conducted to survey opinions (N=204; average response rate=61%) within the international research community on using usage metrics in merit systems. Results: “Research is best quantified using multiple criteria” was selected by most (40%) respondents as the reason that usage metrics are valuable, and 95% of respondents indicated that they would be likely or very likely to use usage metrics in their assessments of research merit, if they had access to them. There was a similar degree of preference for simple and sophisticated usage metrics confirming that one size does not fit all, and that a onemetric approach to merit is insufficient. Conclusion: This survey demonstrates a clear willingness and a real appetite to use a “basket of metrics” to broaden the ways in which research merit can be detected and demonstrated.
English for Russian scientific purposes: tips to improve word use
Issue: 44(3) August 2018. EssaysDmitry Tychinin
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/english-for-russian-scientific-purposes-tips-to-improve-word-use/
Abstract
Worldwide dissemination of Russian science is impeded by scientists’ poor written English. A first step to better English is to cleanse manuscripts of faulty words. The faults discussed in this article are the overuse of active(ly), create, due to, etc, preparation, and study, as well as the misuse of allow, approbate, register, and scientific work(s). The discussion ends with a brief message to the Russian author.
Journal editors and data: the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
Issue: 44(3) August 2018. Editorial
Pippa Smart
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/journal-editors-and-data-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/
No Abstract
Comments