Search

The data paper is an emerging academic genre that focuses on the description of research data objects. However, there is a lack of empirical knowledge about this rising genre in quantitative science studies, particularly from the perspective of its linguistic features. To fill this gap, this research aims to offer a first quantitative examination of which rhetorical moves—rhetorical units performing a coherent narrative function—are used in data paper abstracts, as well as how these moves are used. To this end, we developed a new classification scheme for rhetorical moves in data paper abstracts by expanding a well‐received system that focuses on English‐language research article abstracts. We used this expanded scheme to classify and analyze rhetorical moves used in two flagship data journals, Scientific Data and Data in Brief. We found that data papers exhibit a combination of introduction, method, results, and discussion‐ and data‐oriented moves and that the usage differences between the journals can be largely explained by journal policies concerning abstract and paper structure. This research offers a novel examination of how the data paper, a data‐oriented knowledge representation, is composed, which greatly contributes to a deeper understanding of research data and its publication in the scholarly communication system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, it has been proposed that unrealistic requirements for academics and medical doctors to publish in scientific journals, combined with monetary publication rewards, have led to forms of contract cheating offered by organizations known as paper mills. Paper mills are alleged to offer products ranging from research data through to ghostwritten fraudulent or fabricated manuscripts and submission services. While paper mill operations remain poorly understood, it seems likely that paper mills need to balance product quantity and quality, such that they produce or contribute to large numbers of manuscripts that will be accepted for publication. Producing manuscripts at scale may be facilitated by the use of manuscript templates, which could give rise to shared features such as textual and organizational similarities, the description of highly generic study hypotheses and experimental approaches, digital images that show evidence of manipulation and/or reuse, and/or errors affecting verifiable experimental reagents. Based on these features, we propose practical steps that editors, journal staff, and peer reviewers can take to recognize and respond to research manuscripts and publications that may have been produced with undeclared assistance from paper mills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer review is essential for advancing scientific research, but there are long‐standing concerns that authors' prestige or other characteristics can bias reviewers. Double‐blind peer review has been proposed as a way to reduce reviewer bias, but the evidence for its effectiveness is limited and mixed. Here, we examine the effects of double‐blind peer review by analyzing the review files of 5,027 papers submitted to a top computer science conference that changed its reviewing format from single‐ to double‐blind in 2018. First, we find that the scores given to the most prestigious authors significantly decreased after switching to double‐blind review. However, because many of these papers were above the threshold for acceptance, the change did not affect paper acceptance significantly. Second, the inter‐reviewer disagreement increased significantly in the double‐blind format. Third, papers rejected in the single‐blind format are cited more than those rejected under double‐blind, suggesting that double‐blind review better excludes poorer quality papers. Lastly, an apparently unrelated change in the rating scale from 10 to 4 points likely reduced prestige bias significantly such that papers' acceptance was affected. These results support the effectiveness of double‐blind review in reducing biases, while opening new research directions on the impact of peer‐review formats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on following papers being accepted for publication in a future issue of the Health Information and Libraries Journal including survey of US academic libraries highlighting the COVID-19 experience.

An editorial is presented clarifying the scope of Nursing Inquiry and the types of manuscripts that align with its aims, including discursive papers, critical analyses, and theoretical debates on nursing and healthcare practices. It emphasizes the importance of avoiding a prescribed formula and standardized formats, and encourages authors to engage in critical reflection and present well-developed narrative logic in their submissions to advance the discipline's shared body of knowledge.

Many journals have strict word limits, and authors therefore spend considerable time shortening manuscripts. Here, we provide pointers for efficiently doing so while retaining key content. We include general guidance, tips for condensing the different parts of a scientific paper, and advice on what to avoid when shortening manuscripts. We hope that readers will find our guidance helpful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A poorly chosen article title may make a paper difficult to discover or discourage readership when discovered, reducing an article's impact. Yet, it is unclear how the structure of a manuscript's title influences readership and impact. We used manuscript tracking data for all manuscripts submitted to the journal Functional Ecology from 2004 to 2013 and citation data for papers published in this journal from 1987 to 2011 to examine how title features changed and whether a manuscript's title structure was predictive of success during the manuscript review process and/or impact (citation) after publication. Titles of manuscripts submitted to Functional Ecology became marginally longer (after controlling for other variables), broader in focus (less frequent inclusion of genus and species names), and included more humor and subtitles over the period of the study. Papers with subtitles were less likely to be rejected by editors both pre- and post-peer review, although both effects were small and the presence of subtitles in published papers was not predictive of citations. Papers with specific names of study organisms in their titles fared poorly during editorial (but not peer) review and, if published, were less well cited than papers whose titles did not include specific names. Papers with intermediate length titles were more successful during editorial review, although the effect was small and title word count was not predictive of citations. No features of titles were predictive of reviewer willingness to review papers or the length of time a paper was in peer review. We conclude that titles have changed in structure over time, but features of title structure have only small or no relationship with success during editorial review and post-publication impact. The title feature that was most predictive of manuscript success: papers whose titles emphasize broader conceptual or comparative issues fare better both pre- and post-publication than do papers with organism-specific titles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the first instalment of the Words of Advice series, we feature the essentials of good manuscript writing with practical tips on how to plan, organise and write a standout scientific paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As future scientists, university students need to learn how to avoid making errors in their own manuscripts, as well as how to identify flaws in papers published by their peers. Here we describe a novel approach on how to promote students' ability to critically evaluate scientific articles. The exercise is based on instructing teams of students to write intentionally flawed manuscripts describing the results of simple experiments. The teams are supervised by instructors advising the students during manuscript writing, choosing the ‘appropriate’ errors, monitoring the identification of errors made by the other team and evaluating the strength of their arguments in support of the identified errors. We have compared the effectiveness of the method with a journal club‐type seminar. Based on the results of our assessment we propose that the described seminar may effectively complement the existing approaches to teach critical scientific thinking. © 2017 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 46(1):22–30, 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper deals with the specific features of historical papers relevant for information retrieval and bibliometrics. The analysis is based mainly on the citation indexes accessible under the Web of Science (WoS) but also on field-specific databases: the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) literature database and the INSPEC database. First, the journal coverage of the WoS (in particular of the WoS Century of Science archive), the limitations of specific search fields as well as several database errors are discussed. Then, the problem of misspelled citations and their 'mutations' is demonstrated by a few typical examples. Complex author names, complicated journal names, and other sources of errors that result from prior citation practice are further issues. Finally, some basic phenomena limiting the meaning of citation counts of historical papers are presented and explained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors present guidelines for nursing professionals in converting their conference presentation into a manuscript for submission to the journal. Considerations as outlined by the Medical Librarians association are its purpose, content and organization, style and conversion of the presentation. The authors also advises about the possible outcomes of a submission like the difficulty of a paper to get accepted and the need to respond to suggestions and comments by editors and reviewers.

In this article, the author discusses the efforts made by the editorial team of "Papers in Regional Science" to improve the journal. He says that the use of Internet based online submission and administration system for manuscript handling and management of the review process is more efficient than the paper trail based system. The author claims that the publication's page size was increased so that papers will be published within one year of acceptance. He cites submissions as one of the factors that enhance the reputation of the journal.

We studied the views of scientists who experience resistance to their new ideas by surveying a sample of 815 scientists who are authors of highly cited articles. The 132 responses (16.2%) received indicated that only 47 scientists (35.6%) had no problems with referees, editors, or other scientists. The most common causes of difficulty were rejection of the manuscript, and scepticism, ignorance, and incomprehension. The most common arguments given by referees against papers were that the findings were an insufficient advance to warrant publication, lacked practical impact, were based on a wrong hypothesis, or were based on a wrong concept. The strategies authors used to overcome resistance included obtaining help from someone to publish problematic papers, making changes in the text, and simple persistence. Despite difficulties, however, some respondents acknowledged the positive effect of peer review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on invitation for the submission of special issue concept papers which focuses on identification and treatment of substance abuse. Topics discussed include concept papers must have clear topics and tie proposed manuscripts, concept paper submitted must have a lead author who will function as guest editor, special issue will have manuscripts on unpublished research, it must be submitted through online submission system and will undergo peer review process.

A call for papers about a special issue of the journal on cognitive and applied ageing is presented.

Most top impact factor ecology journals indicate a preference or requirement for short manuscripts; some state clearly defined word limits, whereas others indicate a preference for more concise papers. Yet evidence from a variety of academic fields indicates that within journals longer papers are both more positively reviewed by referees and more highly cited. We examine the relationship between citations received and manuscript length, number of authors, and number of references cited for papers published in 32 ecology journals between 2009 and 2012. We find that longer papers, those with more authors, and those that cite more references are cited more. Although paper length, author count, and references cited all positively covary, an increase in each independently predicts an increase in citations received, with estimated relationships positive for all the journals we examined. That all three variables covary positively with citations suggests that papers presenting more and a greater diversity of data and ideas are more impactful. We suggest that the imposition of arbitrary manuscript length limits discourages the publication of more impactful studies. We propose that journals abolish arbitrary word or page limits, avoid declining papers (or requiring shortening) on the basis of length alone (irrespective of content), and adopt the philosophy that papers should be as long as they need to be. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers suggestions to surgical trainees and academic surgeons who want to publish their research on how to respond to the reviewer's comments after submission of manuscripts to a journal. Topics include responses that can be received by a researcher from the journal editor including acceptance of the manuscript without any changes, and provisional acceptance; a cover letter required by journals to be attached by authors; and how to respond in case of rejection of the manuscript.

The article offers information on the journal's invitation for submission of papers on the social psychology of precarity.

The article argues against simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to several scholarly journals. Journal Publications also serve as a primary measure of the relative ranking of economics department and as such help to determine the reputation of economics department and programs at different schools. Another line of criticism has been directed at the decision making processes that journals employ. Specifically, journals have been faulted for discriminating against women and individuals from less prestigious institutions. Such discrimination may take the form of higher rejection rates, fewer requests to revise and resubmit papers, or slower response rates from editors. Journal referees have been biased against empirical results that do not conform to their theoretical perspective. Multiple submissions would also lead to quicker acceptances through elimination of "rejection waiting time" having to wait for one rejection before being able to send a paper to another journal. Under any multiple submission policy a journal would presumably accept a paper and then allow the author a certain period within which to agree to have the paper published in that journal.

In this article the editor discusses how to comments and replies to published papers. topics discussed include comments on recently published manuscripts on relevant topics or wildlife management; mention about valid criticism of a published article on suitability for publication; and talks about comment criticizing with correcting simple erratum.

The author discusses the steps involved in the submission of research papers and other works for publication in the "British Journal of Industrial Relations." Topics mentioned include the initial submission process, the chief editor's roles in the preliminary assessment of the papers, and the things that authors need to remember if there is an invitation to revise and resubmit.

: [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers a perspective on the impact of Covid-19 pandemic on publishing in nutrition and dietetics. The author discusses the importance of originality of research papers and their value in terms of formulating critical knowledge and evidence base. Factors influencing editor behavior and decision for accepting research for publication include novelty and timeliness of manuscripts, originality of findings, ethics and integrity, methodological quality and quality of abstracts and title.

The article presents the discussion on significant increase in the submission and publication of research papers in nutrition and dietetics which was associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic. Topics include recruited to participate in a study which utilised an online food frequency questionnaire to look at nutrient intake and to self‐report for having diagnosis of type‐2 diabetes; and food frequency questionnaires having low validity while assessing intakes of micronutrients and trace elements.

This article presents a list of working papers available from the Lincoln Institute about the Institute's land policy agenda. The Lincoln Institute regularly makes available working papers that present the results of new and continuing research on issues related to the Institute's land policy agenda. Most papers are of article length, and many are later published in professional or scholarly journals. The Institute announces a list of papers, as well as a special working paper consisting of abstracts from all in print papers. Some of the papers mentioned include "Ethics of Land Use and the Ideas of Henry George," by Robert V. Andelson, et al; "Wealth, Poverty and Sustainable Development," by David Barkin; etc.

The article offers information on how to write a manuscript. It says that Instructions to Authors is needed to detail the character total, word or the length of the page for manuscript, number of tables and figures allowed, and the word count or the total character for abstract. It adds that the key to achieve a good quality manuscript is to tell a story. Moreover, methods section take the reader on what interventions or experiments performed to the hypothesis formed for study.

Recently we proposed a model in which when a scientist writes a manuscript, he picks up several random papers, cites them, and also copies a fraction of their references. The model was stimulated by our finding that a majority of scientific citations are copied from the lists of references used in other papers. It accounted quantitatively for several properties of empirically observed distribution of citations; however, important features such as power-law distributions of citations to papers published during the same year and the fact that the average rate of citing decreases with aging of a paper were not accounted for by that model. Here, we propose a modified model: When a scientist writes a manuscript, he picks up several random recent papers, cites them, and also copies some of their references. The difference with the original model is the word recent. We solve the model using methods of the theory of branching processes, and find that it can explain the aforementioned features of citation distribution, which our original model could not account for. The model also can explain “sleeping beauties in science;” that is, papers that are little cited for a decade or so and later “awaken” and get many citations. Although much can be understood from purely random models, we find that to obtain a good quantitative agreement with empirical citation data, one must introduce Darwinian fitness parameter for the papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A call for papers on the subject of orthogeriatrics is presented.

Presents guidelines for the submission of manuscripts to 'The Philosophical Forum.'

Peer review is the primary method by which journals evaluate the quality and importance of scientific papers. To help editors find suitable reviewers, many journals allow or require authors to suggest names of preferred and nonpreferred reviewers. Though authors should know best who is qualified to review their papers, they also have a strong incentive to suggest reviewers that they expect to review their paper positively., In this study, we examine the reviewers that are suggested as preferred and nonpreferred by authors, the use of these author suggestions by editors, and the influence of author suggestions on the peer review process and outcomes at the journal Functional Ecology. In particular, we examined how gender of the participants (author, editor and reviewer) influences the role of preferred reviewers in the peer review process., Even when not required by the journal, most authors suggest preferred reviewers, but few suggest nonpreferred reviewers. Most author-preferred reviewers are male, but the proportion of women among author suggestions increased over the 11 years, from a low of 15% in 2004 to a high of 25% in 2014., Male and female authors did not differ in how likely they were to suggest preferred reviewers, but the proportion of women among author suggestions was higher for female authors (~28%, averaged across years) than for male authors (~21%). Women that were suggested as author-preferred reviewers were more likely to be selected by editors than were men suggested by authors., There was no evidence that editor gender, seniority or length of service as an editor for Functional Ecology affected the probability that they used author suggestions. Of reviewers invited to review, those that were author-suggested were more likely to respond to the editors' review invitations but were not more likely to agree to review., Most strikingly, author-preferred reviewers rated papers more positively than did editor-selected reviewers, and papers reviewed by author-preferred reviewers were much more likely to be invited for revision than were papers reviewed by editor-selected reviewers. This difference was not influenced by the gender of the participants in the process., Suggesting preferred reviewers benefits authors because preferred reviewers rate papers significantly more positively than do editor-selected reviewers, improving the chances that a paper will be published. Journals and journal editors should recognize that preferred reviewers rate manuscripts differently than do editor-selected reviewers, and be aware that this difference can have large effects on editor decisions., A is available for this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Provides information on the process of reviewing papers for publication in the "Journal of Advanced Nursing." Role and significance of reviewers; Information on the journal's review process using Manuscript Central, the journal's online manuscript processing system; Expectations on reviewers and their reviews.

Objectives The purpose of this study was to characterize the publication fate of a recent 2-year sample of manuscripts declined by Academic Emergency Medicine ( AEM), the journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of manuscripts submitted to AEM in 2010 and 2011 that were declined by the AEM editorial review process. An online search was conducted for each declined paper, to determine whether or not it was published in another clinical/scientific journal after being declined by AEM. The investigators used Scopus and Google Scholar, using the submitting author's name, the verbatim title, and key words and phrases from the title, to search for subsequent publication of each paper. Results Of 1,542 manuscript submissions to the journal in 2010 and 2011, 1,052 papers were declined. Of these, 693 (65.9%) were subsequently published elsewhere, in a total of 229 journals: 362 papers in 22 different EM journals, 81 in 14 EM subspecialty journals, 237 in 185 non- EM journals, and 13 in eight nursing journals. Papers were published a median of 16.7 months (interquartile range [ IQR] = 11.8 to 22.0 months) after being declined at AEM. Of the 229 journals, 19 do not have h-indices. The median h-index of the remaining 210 journals is 36 ( IQR = 17 to 64; maximum = 229; AEM's h-index is 78). Thirty of these 210 journals, publishing 43 papers, have higher h-indices than AEM; the other 650 papers were published in journals either with lower h-indices than AEM's ( n = 180 journals) or in journals without h-indices ( n = 19 journals). U.S. and non-U.S. authors had similar rates of subsequent publication (65.3% vs 66.6%, p = 0.69) for papers initially declined by AEM. Papers in the educational advances category were less likely to be subsequently published than those in the original contributions (p < 0.0001) and brief reports (p = 0.0137) categories. Conclusions Nearly two-thirds of manuscripts declined by SAEM's journal are eventually published elsewhere, in a large number and wide variety of both EM and non- EM journals, in a median of 16.7 months. Authors of manuscripts declined by AEM should consider submission elsewhere, as subsequent publication of these manuscripts in another journal is probable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We explored what authors allegedly do and why, when invited to revise and resubmit manuscripts to refereed journals. Based on responses from 249 business and management scholars from the UK and USA, we found that authors preferred to resubmit to the original journal, whether the required revision was minor or major, and that under certain circumstances other options would be considered: submitting to alternative journals, sometimes without revising at all; discarding the paper; or challenging the editor. Experience in publishing was found to be an important moderator. As to ‘why’ they purport to do so, a classification of qualitative responses yielded a matrix of four optional strategies, grouped along two axes: rationale (instrumental reasoning versus ethical reasoning) and agency (individually centred reasoning versus community-centred reasoning). Most responses were located in the instrumental/self-centred quadrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers instructions for authors regarding research papers publishing in the issue including manuscript pages, web-based submission of manuscripts, and essential components of the manuscripts. It offers an information for literature citation for literature referenced in the article, length criteria for manuscripts, and color figure preparation for best reproduction of articles and applicable charges for it.

Novel ideas often experience resistance from incumbent forces. While evidence of the bias against novelty has been widely identified in science, there is still a lack of large‐scale quantitative work to study this problem occurring in the prepublication process of manuscripts. This paper examines the association between manuscript novelty and handling time of publication based on 778,345 articles in 1,159 journals indexed by PubMed. Measuring the novelty as the extent to which manuscripts disrupt existing knowledge, we found systematic evidence that higher novelty is associated with longer handling time. Matching and fixed‐effect models were adopted to confirm the statistical significance of this pattern. Moreover, submissions from prestigious authors and institutions have the advantage of shorter handling time, but this advantage is diminishing as manuscript novelty increases. In addition, we found longer handling time is negatively related to the impact of manuscripts, while the relationships between novelty and 3‐ and 5‐year citations are U‐shape. This study expands the existing knowledge of the novelty bias by examining its existence in the prepublication process of manuscripts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several questions and answers are presented including one regarding submitting a given manuscript to more than one journal at a time; another on asserting the paper by the university's Institutional Review Board; and other on satisfying demands of reviewers.

Authorship is intended to convey information regarding credit and responsibility for manuscripts. However, while there is general agreement within ecology that the first author is the person who contributed the most to a particular project, there is less agreement regarding whether being last author is a position of significance and regarding what is indicated by someone being the corresponding author on a manuscript. Using an analysis of papers published in American Naturalist, Ecology, Evolution, and Oikos, I found that: (1) the number of authors on papers is increasing over time; (2) the proportion of first authors as corresponding author has increased over time, as has the proportion of last authors as corresponding author; (3) 84% of papers published in 2016 had the first author as corresponding author; and (4) geographic regions differed in the likelihood of having the first (or last) author as corresponding author. I also carried out an online survey to better understand views on last and corresponding authorship. This survey revealed that most ecologists view the last author as the 'senior' author on a paper (i.e., the person who runs the research group in which most of the work was carried out), and most ecologists view the corresponding author as the person taking full responsibility for a paper. However, there was substantial variation in views on authorship, especially corresponding authorship. Given these results, I suggest that discussions of authorship have as their starting point that the first author will be corresponding author and the senior author will be last author. I also suggest ways of deciding author order in cases where two senior authors contributed equally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on how the work contributes to disciplinary or interdisciplinary knowledge. It mentions that papers that seem to practicing a method, but lacking the appropriate depth; and also mentions that background and implications are essential to any paper, and the implications section may warrant a stand alone paper as well.

The article presents the author's comments on the publication of the journal. The author says that many manuscripts accepted for publication in the journal could not be published due to the paucity of space as well as the limited novel findings. The Journal receives about 650 manuscripts per year, but the journal can accommodate only 110 pages.

The article presents an announcement from the British Association of Critical Care Nurses (BACCN) inviting clinical experts to submit clinically focused papers to the journal "Nursing in Critical Care."

The article calls for clinical experts to submit clinically focused papers to the British Association of Critical Care Nurses' (BACCN) journal "Nursing in Critical Care."

The article calls for clinically focused papers to be published in the journal.

This paper argues for a broad definition of philosophical sources and how Indigenous traditional knowledge fits that definition. It concludes by showing how, following the previous two points, an Indigenous document such as the Huarochirí Manuscript can be considered a philosophical source by academic philosophers. The paper has three sections: the first deals with the methodological point of addressing what can be considered as philosophy. This section presents a conversational approach to philosophy. This approach, although broad, properly captures the practices of inquiring about philosophical issues as is commonly done in Western academic circles, but without excluding the practices of non‐Western cultures from being labelled as philosophical. The second section argues for the analytical distinction between a philosophical source, a philosophical text, and a philosophical insight. It shows that what makes a philosophical source such are the philosophical insights that it can provide. The final section shows how the Huarochirí Manuscript has merits making it worthy of being considered a philosophical source and thus a relevant academic source for those working in the field of philosophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Submissions fell back slightly in 2023 to 474 manuscripts but remain above pre‐Covid levels. Despite the high number of submissions, there has been little change in the number of papers accepted for publication, with the acceptance rate in 2023 standing at 8%. The acceptance rate is considerably higher for papers originating from Europe and North America. Accepted papers are now routinely made available online as 'Early View'. The Journal's Impact Factor fell back slightly for 2022, but still compares favourably with other journals in the field of agricultural economics. Operational changes include revisions to the journal's webpage and authors' guidelines and a newly configured editorial team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Conservation Biology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

An analysis of 134 reviews of manuscripts submitted to the North American Editorial Office of Physiologia Plantarum in 1993 compared personal/professional characteristics of the reviewers and the specificity of the interest and experience of the reviewers, relative to the reviewed paper, to the depth and tone of the reviews, the presence of constructive suggestions, and the recommendations for or against publication. There was no significant difference between the reviews from the reviewers of different ranks or degrees of seniority, of different employment sectors, of different degrees of interest and experience in the subject of the paper, or of other subgroups, except that reviewers whose interest and experience were very specific to the topic of the paper tended to give more constructive suggestions, and assistant professors tended to be less accepting of papers than editors more frequently than did reviewers in general. Recommendations regarding a manuscript were more similar than could be accounted for by chance, providing a positive indication of the reliability of the review system. Editors in their decisions tended to follow the recommendations of reviewers, but when reviewers took an extreme tone, either positive or negative, the editors tended to provide a balancing function. The data provide support for the reliability and lack of bias in a commonly used peer-review system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A fourth call for papers by the Minnesota Chapter of American Fisheries Society (AFS) for the 142nd Annual Meeting of the AFS in 2012 in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, with the theme "Fisheries Networks: Building Ecological, Social and Professional Relationship," is presented.

The article presents an invitation for open-dated submission of paleontological papers for review based on the editorial guidelines and policies in order to facilitate the publication of scientific achievements to the English edition of the journal "Acta Geologica Sinica."