Welcome to the sixteenth issue of Reviewers’ Update
I am pleased to be back to edit this sixteenth edition of Reviewers' Update where we have some great articles from our contributors.
In previous issues authors have written about various reviewer initiatives Elsevier is involved in. We presented the Peer Review Challenge in issue 10 (March 2012), and in our March 2013 issue Ursula van Dijk, Head of Marketing Communications, covered the launch of our Annual Recognition Program. Ursula van Dijk is back in this issue to tell you about Elsevier Reviewer Badges. Reviewer badges enable reviewers to feature any journal, for which they have reviewed, in their e-mail signature or on their personal webpage. From this article you can follow our link and download your own reviewer badge in seconds.
A very timely and important topic is then covered by Mark Seeley, Senior Vice President & General Counsel at Elsevier, 'Ethics in Scientific and Medical Publishing.' Mark Seeley shares his observations on the current publishing ethics landscape and draws on some well-known cases. For those who have an interest in ethics in publishing, at the end of this article we link to other articles covering types of research misconduct encountered, which also appeared in our September issue of Editors' Update.
Ylann Schemm, Senior Corporate Responsibility Manager at Elsevier has contributed an article on the Elsevier Foundation New Scholars Program. With only around 15% of women at full professor level in the STEM fields in US and Europe, 'Leveling the Playing Field' looks at how the Elsevier New Scholars Program supports a more family-friendly academia through research, recognition and workshops. The Elsevier Foundation is involved in many initiatives around the world and since its inception has awarded more than 60 grants worth millions of dollars to non-profit organizations working in these fields. Read more about their work here.
And our final contribution is from Professor Togas Tulandi, McGill University, Montreal, Canada who has kindly featured in our Reviewer's Profile.
As always, we would like to hear your views via our Opinion Poll, this issue on preferences for the form peer review takes, and also your feedback on any articles in this issue or ideas for future ones.
I hope you enjoy this issue.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
In June this year, Elsevier launched 'reviewer badges.' Reviewer badges enable reviewers to feature any journal, for which they have reviewed, in their e-mail signature or on their personal webpage using a new badge we have created. Read more...
Ethics in Scientific and Medical Publishing
Ethics in society and business has many meanings — conducting one's self in a way that respects and recognizes others and their contributions, but also the notion of compliance with our societally-sanctioned behavioral processes (including laws and regulations). Read more...
Leveling the Playing Field
The Elsevier Foundation New Scholars Program Supports a More Family-Friendly Academia through Research, Recognition and Workshops. Read more...
Togas Tulandi MD, MHCM is Professor and Academic Vice-Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics Gynecology at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. Read more..
Single blind peer review is the traditional and most common method of reviewing, where the names of the reviewers are hidden from the authors. Other forms of peer review include, double blind (where both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous) and open review (where the reviewer and author are known to each other). Read more about the types of peer review here.
What form of peer review do you prefer?
- Single blind
- Double blind
- Open review
- I don't have a preference
Click here to vote
Results from our Opinion Poll in Issue 15
PDF vs. HTML - how do you prefer to access information online?
Both, depends on what I am trying to achieve
Neither, I prefer to print out information
5.57% (22 responses)
44.3% (175 responses)
47.34% (187 responses)
2.78% (11 responses)
Results as of 17th September 2013