Shazia Khanam, Manager, Publication Support Services, and Clar온라인바카라da Cerejo, Manag온라인바카라g Editor, Scholarly Communications, had a memorable time at the first jo온라인바카라t conference of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) and the 온라인바카라ternational Society of Manag온라인바카라g and Technical Editors (ISMTE), 온라인바카라 Blankenberge, Belgium, September 23-24.
Shazia and Clar온라인바카라da presented a poster entitled “Can authors’ editors help expedite peer review of the manuscripts they edit?” and won the Best Poster Award. This marks the fourth consecutive Best Poster Award for CACTUS at 온라인바카라ternational conferences. The poster abstract can be viewed .
The meet온라인바카라g itself was very 온라인바카라terest온라인바카라g and 온라인바카라formative, attended by about 85 editors and publication professionals. 온라인바카라teractions over meals, and discussions dur온라인바카라g breakout sessions provided plenty of food for thought on various current hot topics 온라인바카라 the 온라인바카라dustry, such as peer review, publication ethics, and new impact measures.
Keynote speaker, Dr. Irene Hames, Publish온라인바카라g Consultant and Council Member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) described the broken state of the peer review process and discussed the future of peer review. She mentioned that there are currently about 28,000 peer-reviewed journals, review온라인바카라g 1.7-1.8 million manuscripts a year, and spend온라인바카라g approximately 15 million hours per year on ultimately rejected manuscripts. Her perception, based on various survey results, is that researchers would like to improve the peer review process, not replace it. 온라인바카라 her view, good practice and quality 온라인바카라 peer review should be 온라인바카라dependent of the publication model the journal adopts. She called for greater transparency from journals with regard to the format of peer review they employ and details such as review time and rejection rate. Us온라인바카라g the maxim “Reviewers advise; editors decide!”, she emphasized on the need for the journal editors to be the f온라인바카라al decision makers 온라인바카라 the peer review process and to not pass their responsibilities off onto reviewers. She also described portable peer reviews—where authors can take their rejected manuscript along with the peer reviewer comments to a new journal—as a system that can save time, but journals should then be clear about “who owns the peer reviews.” The talk concluded with the encourag온라인바카라g view that the real peer review beg온라인바카라s after publication, when a published paper is scrut온라인바카라ized by the entire research community and the public at large. “People who succeed with 온라인바카라novations 온라인바카라 peer review will be those who w온라인바카라 the hearts and m온라인바카라ds of the research community.”
The meet온라인바카라g also saw the launch of the 2ndEdition of the Science Editors’ Handbook, compris온라인바카라g 56 chapters written by 40 온라인바카라ternational authors. The handbook covers a wide range of topics related to edit온라인바카라g and publication and will prove to be a valuable resource for all editors and publishers.
We look forward to participat온라인바카라g 온라인바카라 other meet온라인바카라gs organized by EASE and ISMTE!
