Search

Objective: To map the outcomes of resubmission policies for initially unsuccessful biomedical research grant applications to competitive funding agencies. Introduction: The initial success rate of grant applications in the biomedical sciences is falling and the number of resubmissions is rising. How funding agencies draft and apply policies on grant resubmission has implications for equity, diversity, and inclusion among applying scientists and for overall scientific innovation and progress. Inclusion criteria: Studies that measure outcomes and/or applicant demographics related to grant resubmission success are included. This review is limited to competitive funding agencies in biomedicine that make funding decisions based on peer review of grant applications, and does not include studies of only first-time applications. Methods: Using an existing scoping review methodology, we will systematically search: MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Central Registrar of Controlled Trials CENTRAL (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ebsco), Web of Science (University of British Columbia Institutional Access) , IEEE Xplore Digital Library, for published literature, and OpenGrey, GoogleScholar, arXiv.org, medRxiv.org and ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished literature. In addition, a targeted Internet search will be performed to identify information in the grey literature. Two reviewers will independently screen abstracts and then full-text articles, identifying evidence for inclusion according to the criteria listed above. This review will report information including, but not limited to: demographic characteristics of the applicants to these competitions, process metrics (e.g., time to funding, volume of reapplications), or downstream effects of the resubmissions process (e.g., applicant career progress, likelihood of resubmitting, future funding or publication success). A preliminary search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Open Science Framework, and JBI Evidence Synthesis was conducted and no active systematic reviews or scoping reviews on the topic were identified.

PURPOSE: Medical education researchers are often uncertain whether they should submit abstracts to certain conferences. Therefore, we aimed to elicit consensus among medical education conference organizers to answer the question: what are best practices for research abstract submissions to multiple conferences? METHODS: Using a 44-question online survey, we conducted a modified Delphi process to identify best practices for abstract submissions to medical education conferences. Consistent with the Delphi process, we identified conference representatives from non-specialty medical education conferences and across four conference types (institutional, regional, national, and international) to serve as panelists. RESULTS: Eleven expert panelists, representing all four conference types—two institutional conferences, five regional conferences, two national conferences, and two international conferences—completed three rounds of the survey. After three rounds, panelists reached consensus on 39/44 survey items—26 items in round 1, 10 items in round 2, and three items in round 3. Panelists’ consensus and rationale indicated that it is most appropriate to resubmit abstracts to conferences with a larger or different audience, but not to more homogeneous audiences. Among the four conference types, abstract resubmission from institutional conferences to other conference types was the most widely accepted. Panelists agreed that abstracts using data and results submitted or accepted for publication could be submitted to any conference type. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide best practices for presenting scholarship to medical education conferences. We recommend that guidelines for medical education conference abstract submissions provide consistent, clear instructions regarding the appropriate life cycle of an abstract.

In the general prospect of globalization, investments have always been surrounded by problems that needed to be solved neutrally and impartially. In other words, the global commercial system always required a universally applicable, impartial and neutral judicial system that can be used for settling a dispute arising between nationals of different states or nationals and foreign countries. The following article aims to analyze the unique features of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) system and its autonomous nature. Specifically, the article will deal with the remedies provided by the international framework to the ICSID awards and the procedural steps that must be undertaken by the parties in order to access a specific remedy with a special emphasis on the most powerful remedy, which is the annulment of an award. Furthermore, the article will focus on the interlink between those remedies and the ones provided by the national law of a Contracting Party or other international non-ICSID law streams. While the vast majority of the international doctrine and case law address the situation of the investor, thus focusing on its interest, this article will mainly focus on the interests of the Contracting State in its capacity as respondent to defend against a claim arising from a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). Given that the legal framework in discussion is a highly specific one, the article will first address the ICSID convention and its final and binding nature. Further on, we will discuss the control mechanism comprising the specific remedies provided by the Convention. We will then proceed to tackle two of the most important postannulment issues and finally, turn our attention to comparison between ICSID and non-ICSID legal framework.

The overarching goalsof the University of Kentucky (UK) IMERS workshops, supported by an IPERT grant, are to empower faculty at minority-serving institutions (MSIs) to develop and submit competitive research proposals through intensive grant-writing skills training;to build research-related individual and institutional capacity through training on mentorship of student researchers;and to sustain workshop momentum by embedding multiple levels of mentored proposal development support during and after each workshop. We hypothesize that this targeted training will enhance the research environment at MSI's, increase the diversity of NIH-funded investigators and improve the training of underrepresented students in biomedical research, thus providing a feed-forward mechanism to expand the diversity of the US biomedical workforce in future years. A hallmark of IMERS is to engage participants in hands-on, active-learning style grant-writing training for faculty who are poised to submit NIH proposals ranging from development/exploratory to R01s. This training is provided by UK faculty and experienced research development professionals. The IMERS model incorporates guided writing, participatory training, and active learning. Training is comprised of several modalities. First, IMERS offers two 3-day grant-writing retreats/year on the UK campus. These workshops are designed for highly motivated investigators who have submitted proposals to NIH without success and those who have been actively planning NIH submission;~25 faculty are selected for each workshop via an on-line application. On-site workshops include consultation with actively funded UK investigators and staff from the UK Proposal Development Office;we strive to maintain post-workshop interactions between participants and UK faculty/staff. Three 2-day off-site workshops/year are also offered. The IMERS staff will work with off-site institutions to tailor the workshops to specific needs. In-person workshops have been postponed due to COVID-19 restrictions, but will resume when safe to do so. However, we have developed an active series of virtual workshops and seminars during this time, and we anticipate that these and additional on-line activities will continue as a third arm of training even after restriction are lifted. Travel and lodging expenses for faculty to attend UK workshops, for the IMERS team to travel, are covered by the grant. Workshop sessions cover numerous topics, including: using NIH resources for program/funding information, budget issues, the proposal review process, writing a high-impact specific aims page and an effective research strategy, rigor and reproducibility, responsible conduct of research, NIH Biosketch, navigating the NIH resubmission process, and mentoring student researchers. Program evaluation, based in part on participant survey data, communication email and an active ListServ and subsequent submission rate and success, validates that program participants have increased confidence in their grant-writing abilities and are succeeding in obtaining NIH funding.

Context: Software developers contribute numerous changes every day to the code review systems. However, not all submitted changes are merged into a codebase because they might not pass the code review process. Some changes would be abandoned or be asked for resubmission after improvement, which results in more workload for developers and reviewers, and more delays to deliverables. Objective: To understand the underlying reasons why changes are abandoned, we conduct an empirical study on the code review of four open source projects (Eclipse, LibreOffice, OpenStack, and Qt). Method: First, we manually analyzed 1459 abandoned changes. Second, we leveraged the open card sorting method to label these changes with reasons why they were abandoned, and we identified 12 categories of reasons. Next, we further investigated the frequency distribution of the categories across projects. Finally, we studied the relationship between the categories and time-to-abandonment. Results: Our findings include the following: (1) Duplicate changes are the majority of the abandoned changes; (2) the frequency distribution of abandoned changes across the 12 categories is similar for the four open source projects; (3) 98.39% of the changes are abandoned within a year. Conclusion: Our study concluded the root causes of abandoned changes, which will help developers submit high-quality code changes.

Background Early career researchers face a hypercompetitive funding environment. To help identify effective intervention strategies for early career researchers, we examined whether first-time NIH R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful at obtaining any R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than original, unfunded applicants who submitted new NIH applications, and we examined whether underrepresented minority (URM) applicants differentially benefited from resubmission. Our observational study is consistent with an NIH working group’s recommendations to develop interventions to encourage resubmission. Methods and findings First-time applicants with US medical school academic faculty appointments who submitted an unfunded R01 application between 2000–2014 yielded 4,789 discussed and 7,019 not discussed applications. We then created comparable groups of first-time R01 applicants (resubmitted original R01 application or submitted new NIH applications) using optimal full matching that included applicant and application characteristics. Primary and subgroup analyses used generalized mixed models with obtaining any NIH R01 funding within 3 and 5 years as the two outcomes. A gamma sensitivity analysis was performed. URM applicants represented 11% and 12% of discussed and not discussed applications, respectively. First-time R01 applicants resubmitting their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful obtaining R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than applicants submitting new applications—for both discussed and not discussed applications: discussed within 3 years (OR 4.17 [95 CI 3.53, 4.93]) and 5 years (3.33 [2.82–3.92]); and not discussed within 3 years (2.81 [2.52, 3.13]) and 5 years (2.47 [2.22–2.74]). URM applicants additionally benefited within 5 years for not discussed applications. Conclusions Encouraging early career researchers applying as faculty at a school of medicine to resubmit R01 applications is a promising potential modifiable factor and intervention strategy. First-time R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application had log-odds of obtaining downstream R01 funding within 3 and 5 years 2–4 times higher than applicants who did not resubmit their original application and submitted new NIH applications instead. Findings held for both discussed and not discussed applications.

The primary goal of the peer review of research grant proposals is to evaluate their quality for the funding agency. An important secondary goal is to provide constructive feedback to applicants for their resubmissions. However, little is known about whether review feedback achieves this goal. In this paper, we present a multi-methods analysis of responses from grant applicants regarding their perceptions of the effectiveness and appropriateness of peer review feedback they received from grant submissions. Overall, 56–60% of applicants determined the feedback to be appropriate (fair, well-written, and well-informed), although their judgments were more favorable if their recent application was funded. Importantly, independent of funding success, women found the feedback better written than men, and more white applicants found the feedback to be fair than non-white applicants. Also, perceptions of a variety of biases were specifically reported in respondents’ feedback. Less than 40% of applicants found the feedback to be very useful in informing their research and improving grantsmanship and future submissions. Further, negative perceptions of the appropriateness of review feedback were positively correlated with more negative perceptions of feedback usefulness. Importantly, respondents suggested that highly competitive funding pay-lines and poor inter-panel reliability limited the usefulness of review feedback. Overall, these results suggest that more effort is needed to ensure that appropriate and useful feedback is provided to all applicants, bolstering the equity of the review process and likely improving the quality of resubmitted proposals. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11948-021-00295-9.

Objective: to describe the process for the elaboration and validation of a digital educational booklet intended for health professionals on the correct use of Personal Protective Equipment in the context of COVID-19. Method: a methodological study conducted between June and September 2020, operationalized in three stages: 1ststage: bibliographic survey; 2ndstage: elaboration of the booklet with the graphic designer to help in the development process of the technology; 3rdstage: content validation of the booklet by specialists through the Delphi technique. The validation was performed by 35 health and biology professionals and the local for selection of these was the Lattes Platform, using the Delphi technique in two rounds. The Content Validation Index was considered an acceptance criterion, with an agreement ≥ 0.78 among the judges being considered a good level. Results: the first version of the booklet obtained a global Content Validation Index of 0.79. There were suggestions for improvement that were accepted and, after the Delphi 2 phase, there was the resubmission of the booklet; it presented a global Content Validation Index of 0.99. Conclusion: the booklet was validated regarding its content and is compatible with its intended purpose, being important for the promotion of knowledge about the correct procedure to put on this equipment so that prevention measures are effective and shared.

Introduction: Pilot programs are integral to catalyzing and accelerating research at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs. However, little has been published about the structure and operationalization of pilot programs or how they impact the translational research enterprise at CTSAs. The North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS), the CTSA hub at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) conducted an evaluation case study to describe the pilot program structure, assess process outcomes, and provide a framework for other institutions to utilize for the evaluation of their respective pilot programs. Methods: We describe the operationalization of our pilot program, the evaluation framework utilized to evaluate the program, and how we analyzed available data to understand how our pilot funding opportunities were utilized by investigators. We calculated application volumes and funding rates by investigator position title and pilot application type. We also reviewed feedback provided by pilot Principal Investigators (PIs) to understand how many pilot projects were completed, NC TraCS service utilization, and barriers to research. Limited data on publications and subsequent funding was also reviewed. Results: Between 2009 and 2019 the NC TraCS Pilot Program received 2343 applications and funded 933 projects, ranging from $2000 to $100,000 in amount, with an overall funding rate of 39.8%. Utilization of NC TraCS services had positive impacts on both resubmission funding and project completion rates. Conclusion: This process evaluation indicates that the program is being operationalized in a way that successfully fulfills the program mission while meeting the needs of a diverse group of researchers.

We conducted a questionnaire study aimed towards PhD students in the field of visualization research to understand how they cope with paper rejections. We collected responses from 24 participants and performed a qualitative analysis of the data in relation to the provided support by collaborators, resubmission strategies, handling multiple rejects, and personal impression of the reviews. The results indicate that the PhD students in the visualization community generally cope well with the negative reviews and, with experience, learn how to act accordingly to improve and resubmit their work. Our results reveal the main coping strategies that can be applied for constructively handling rejected visualization papers. The most prominent strategies include: discussing reviews with collaborators and making a resubmission plan, doing a major revision to improve the work, shortening the work, and seeing rejection as a positive learning experience.

Plagiarism Policy of EJMS Identification & Dealing with Research Misconduct The editorial board of the EJMS is aware of various types of research misconduct, like plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication. To discourage such research misconduct we will screen, scan, and cross-verify each manuscript manually and with the help of software as well. In case of any research misconduct, the editorial board of EJMS will follow the COPE’s guidelines in dealing with the allegations of misconduct. Policy of EJMS for any Sort of Research Misconduct: The editorial board of the Europasian Journal of Medical Sciences (EJMS) will not accept manuscript with plagiarism in any form. We have established the following policy stating specific actions (penalties) when any sort of research misconduct is identified in an article that is submitted for the publication in the EJMS. Every manuscript submitted to the EJMS must be original, unpublished, and not even pending for the publication in other journals. Any text with someone's view, idea, findings should be explicitly acknowledged and any photograph, figure and graphic material reproduced from another source should be presented with permission from the person or copyright holder. Plagiarism Policy The plagiarism is an act of copying someone's theories, ideas, or statements without giving the explicit acknowledgement to the author of the original source. It is assumed unethical in scientific writing. Any text with someone's view, idea, findings should be explicitly acknowledged and any photograph, figure and graphic material reproduced from another source should be presented with permission from the person or copyright holder. The editorial board of the EJMS will not accept manuscript with plagiarism in any form. We have established the following policy stating specific actions (penalties) when plagiarism is identified in a manuscript that is submitted for the possible publication in the EJMS. Identification of Plagiarism and Penalties The EJMS has owned iThenticate Plagiarism Checking Software powered by Turnitin for checking possible plagiarism of all submitted manuscript. On the basis of extent of the plagiarism, the editorial team will decide whether to accept the manuscript and proceed for the further peer-review process or reject the manuscript from the editorial desk. Once the plagiarism is identified, the Section Editor will warn the author with its future consequences, and ask to revise the manuscript converting the plagiarized content into the unique one. If the authors don’t correct it, the editorial board will take action on the basis of the degree of plagiarism under the following guidelines. Plagiarism Offense Type I (Minor Offense): If some portion (less than two complete paragraph or less than 15% of the total content) of any article is plagiarized without significant data or idea, then it is assumed to have minor plagiarism offence. Penalties: The last warning with the possibilities of penalties of type II and type III offence is given to the author(s) and asked to resubmit the manuscript after rewriting the plagiarized contents of the manuscript with proper citation of the original article. Plagiarism Offense Type II (Intermediate Offense): If a significant portion (more than two complete paragraph or less than 25% of the total content) of any article is plagiarized without significant data or idea, then it is assumed to have intermediate plagiarism offence. Penalties: The submitted article is rejected and the author(s) is/are not allowed to resubmission of the manuscript at least for one year. Plagiarism Offense Type III (Severe Offense): If a significant portion (more than 25% of the total content) of any article is plagiarized with significant data or idea, then it is assumed to have severe plagiarism offence. Penalties: The paper is rejected and the author(s) is/are kept in blacklist for 3 to 10 years of time depending on the severity of the plagiarism.

In this paper we are going to explain all the payment statuses in a payment work-flow and their exact meaning. All these status flags are important since they make the process flawless, each one have an exact meaning and it is a part of a larger mechanism that is responsible for the payment process. These label (tags) are used as labels and they cannot just change the values of a credit card or make a refund or a resubmission. This can only done by the gateway interface software. This paper is continued from a previous work [4] and examines in depth the status flags used in a payment process so that a payment can be submitted, processed and troubleshot if necessary.

Cloud service providers (CSP) provide on-demand cloud computing services, reduces the cost of setting-up and scaling-up IT infrastructure and services, and stimulates shorter establishment times for start-ups that offer or use cloud-based services. Task reneging or dropping sometimes occur when a task waits in the queue longer than its timeout or execution deadline, or it is compromised and must be dropped from the queue or as an active queue management strategy to avoid tail dropping of tasks when the queues are full. Reneged or dropped tasks could be resubmitted provided they were not dropped due to security reasons. In this paper, we present a simple M/M/c/N queueing model of a cloud computing physical machine, where the interarrival times and the services times are exponentially distributed, with N buffer size and c virtual machines running in parallel. We present numerical examples to illustrate the effect of task reneging and task resubmission on the queueing delay, probability of task rejection, and the probability of immediate service.

In a Decision dated 8 January 2020, the ad hoc Committee in Victor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v Republic of Chile decided in favour of the Respondent by declining to annul a 2016 Award—the second in the dispute. The decision is remarkable, not just because it serves as the final chapter in the longest-running ICSID dispute to date, but also because it illustrates the many difficulties that may arise from the application of the principle of res judicata in resubmission proceedings. This case comment focuses on the Committee’s application of res judicata: to this end, it succinctly reviews the background to the dispute (Section II), addresses the decision of the Committee (Section III) as well as the Separate Opinion (Section IV), and comments on the Tribunal’s application of the doctrine and its potential implications for future cases (Section V).

Modern machine learning and computer science conferences are experiencing a surge in the number of submissions that challenges the quality of peer review as the number of competent reviewers is growing at a much slower rate. To curb this trend and reduce the burden on reviewers, several conferences have started encouraging or even requiring authors to declare the previous submission history of their papers. Such initiatives have been met with skepticism among authors, who raise the concern about a potential bias in reviewers' recommendations induced by this information. In this work, we investigate whether reviewers exhibit a bias caused by the knowledge that the submission under review was previously rejected at a similar venue, focusing on a population of novice reviewers who constitute a large fraction of the reviewer pool in leading machine learning and computer science conferences. We design and conduct a randomized controlled trial closely replicating the relevant components of the peer-review pipeline with $133$ reviewers (master's, junior PhD students, and recent graduates of top US universities) writing reviews for $19$ papers. The analysis reveals that reviewers indeed become negatively biased when they receive a signal about paper being a resubmission, giving almost 1 point lower overall score on a 10-point Likert item ($\Delta = -0.78, \ 95\% \ \text{CI} = [-1.30, -0.24]$) than reviewers who do not receive such a signal. Looking at specific criteria scores (originality, quality, clarity and significance), we observe that novice reviewers tend to underrate quality the most.

Purpose To investigate patterns of failure in institutional credentialing submissions to NRG/RTOG 1005 with the aim of improving the quality and consistency for future breast cancer protocols. Methods and Materials NRG/RTOG 1005 allowed the submission of 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) breast plans. Credentialing required institutions to pass a 2-step quality assurance (QA) process: (1) benchmark, requiring institutions to create a plan with no unacceptable deviations and ≤1 acceptable variation among the dose volume (DV) criteria, and (2) rapid review, requiring each institution's first protocol submission to have no unacceptable deviations among the DV criteria or contours. Overall rates, number of resubmissions, and reasons for resubmission were analyzed for each QA step. Results In total, 352 institutions participated in benchmark QA and 280 patients enrolled had rapid review QA. Benchmark initial failure rates were similar for 3DCRT (18%), IMRT (17%), and SIB (18%) plans. For 3DCRT and IMRT benchmark plans, ipsilateral lung most frequently failed the DV criteria, and SIB DV failures were seen most frequently for the heart. Rapid review contour initial failures (35%) were due to target rather than organs at risk. For 29% of the rapid review initial failures, the planning target volume boost eval volume was deemed an unacceptable deviation. Conclusions The review of the benchmark and rapid review QA submissions indicates that acceptable variations or unacceptable deviations for the ipsilateral lung and heart dose constraints were the most commonly observed cause of benchmark QA failure, and unacceptable deviations in target contouring, rather than normal structure contouring, were the most common cause of rapid review QA failure. These findings suggest that a rigorous QA process is necessary for high quality and homogeneity in radiation therapy in multi-institutional trials of breast cancer to ensure that the benefits of radiation therapy far outweigh the risks.

The role of reflection and self-regulation in academic performance was tested using the "Exam Wrapper" strategy with a writing assignment for a technical elective course. The technical writing assignment involved the creation of a detailed outline for a technical report. This outline was submitted for grading and feedback before a subsequent extended technical report assignment. The outline was graded by the course teaching assistant, following a detailed grading rubric. After receiving the grade and feedback, students could resubmit a revised outline for re-grading, and include a reflection on the circumstances of their performance. Using the grading rubric, the resubmission was graded by the course instructor. A second graduate student evaluated the student reflection quality, and the resubmission quality. The effect of the self-reflection quality on re-submitted assignment improvement was assessed. The average grade improvement for students who resubmitted a reflection was +15.1 % (n=16), and for students who resubmitted without a reflection was +6.3 % (n=3). The difference between the average resubmitted and first submission grades positively correlated with reflection quality. These results suggest that a reflection exercise associated with a resubmission has potential to improve student technical writing quality.

Purpose/Objective(s) NRG/RTOG 0848 is a two-step randomized trial to evaluate the benefit of the addition of concurrent fluoropyrimidine and radiotherapy (RT) following adjuvant gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (2nd step) for patients with resected pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. Real-time quality assurance (QA) was performed for each patient who underwent RT. QA findings were reviewed, frequencies & reasons for resubmissions are reported. Materials/Methods Patients were treated using either a 3D-conformal RT (3DCRT) or intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) technique. In addition to a web-based contouring atlas, the protocol outlined step-by-step instructions for generating the clinical treatment volume (CTV) through the creation of specific regions of interest. The planning target volume (PTV) was established by expanding the CTV by 0.5 cm in all directions. Treatment planning data, including pre-operative imaging, surgical and pathology reports, simulation images with isodose lines, structure set, and dose volume histograms were submitted for review. One of two radiation oncology study chairs independently reviewed each plan. Plans with unacceptable deviations were returned for revision and then resubmitted for review until approved. Treatment started after final approval of the RT plan. Results Of the 354 patients who underwent second randomization, 180 were randomized to the RT arm. Of these, 160 received RT and were included in the QA analysis. Most patients (86%) were treated using IMRT. Resubmissions were more common for patients planned with 3D-CRT (43%) than with IMRT (31%). In total, at least one resubmission of the treatment plan was required for 33% of patients (see Table 1). Among patients requiring resubmission, the majority only needed to be resubmitted once (87%). The most common reasons for resubmission were unacceptable deviations with respect to the pre-operative gross target volume (GTV, 61%) and the pancreatojejunostomy (48%), leading to unacceptable deviations of the contours of the CTV and PTV (70% for each). Most patients requiring a resubmission had 5-9 unacceptable deviations (46%). Unacceptable deviations were similar for the few treatment plans that needed to be resubmitted more than once. Conclusion One third of patients required resubmission to meet protocol compliance criteria, demonstrating the continued need for expending resources on pretreatment QA for adjuvant pancreas cancer trials. Rigorous QA is of critical importance for clinical trials involving RT to ensure that the true impact of RT can be assessed. Moreover, RT QA serves as an educational process by training radiation oncologists on best practices.

Previous research indicates that craft breweries experience difficulties with the Certificate of Labeling Approval (COLA) and formula approval processes established by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). This study evaluated the relationship between brewery characteristics and regulatory outcomes. Brewery characteristics of interest were number of full-time personnel, permit age, production volume, regulatory submission volume, and resource utilization. The outcomes evaluated were resubmission frequency of COLA and formula submissions, expense burden, and information burden. The results indicate that correspondence with TTB officials decreases resubmission frequency of formula submissions, while volume of resources used during submission preparation is positively correlated with the resubmission frequency of COLA submissions. Regarding expense burden, advice from fellow brewers and coworkers decreases burden associated with formula submissions and COLA submissions, respectively. The results indicate that the COLA and formula processes are associated with substantial information burden and are significantly associated with certain brewery characteristics.

This paper discusses reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication in Ethiopian Journal of Education (EJE). It intends to promote publication by domestic and/or international authors in EJE by analyzing the reasons for rejection of manuscripts. To gather the relevant data, a total of 101 rejected manuscripts submitted for publication EJE in the years 2008 to 2013 was collected and assessed. Moreover, contents of rejection letters were looked into. In doing so, the institutional affiliation of authors of the rejected manuscripts, editorial processes in which manuscripts were rejected mostly, the principal reasons for rejecting manuscripts of EJE, types of manuscripts which were more often exposed to rejection, and the nature of comments recommending rejection were analyzed. The results reveal that most of rejected manuscripts of EJE were affiliated from Addis Ababa University and Bahir Dar University, and the manuscripts were rejected mostly during the preliminary assessment, initial reviewing phase. Furthermore, using inappropriate research methods, poor data analysis and presentation, inadequacy of data to justify the conclusions, failure to follow the Journal’s styles and formats (guidelines) and failure or unwilling to revise manuscripts as per reviewers’ suggestions were principal reasons for rejecting manuscripts of EJE. The highest numbers of rejected manuscripts of EJE were also empirical studies which EJE accepts for publication consistently, and reviewers rejected those manuscripts after indicating their weaknesses and remarking further organization for resubmission. Finally, based on the results, the paper outlined recommendations for minimizing rejected manuscripts of EJE, and further studies were suggested. Key words: Manuscripts, publications, peer-review, rejection.