Peer Review Process and Publication Ethics

This assignment focuses on the peer review process in academic publishing, exploring its significance, methodology, and impact on research quality. It also delves into publication ethics, highlighting the importance of integrity, transparency, and accountability in scholarly work. By examining various sources, including journal articles and books, this assignment provides a comprehensive understanding of peer review and its role in ensuring the validity and reliability of academic research.

Running head: PUBLICATION PLAN 1
Publication Plan
Name
Institutional Affiliation

2
PUBLICATION PLAN
Publication Plan
Introduction
The field of medical publication is intricate and fast-moving. It comprises of complicated
relationships between journal editors, academic investigators and publication experts in
medicinal industries (Rouault, 2015). Publication planning is an industry in the pharmaceutical
domain, which performs administrative and practical requirements of modeling the statistics of
therapeutic companies and changing it into medical journals. Its primary purpose is not to market
the pharmaceutical products, but to act as a basis for a suitable propagation of clinical and
scientific information, awareness and education.
According to Donovan (2007), publication in academic journal articles has a significant
role in developing and ensuring the progress of nursing as a profession. Alternatively, it gives
opportunities to experts in occupations for instance nursing for sharing their preeminent training
instances as well as investigation findings with their associates in the same faculty. Besides,
Henly, Bennett, & Dougherty (2010) acknowledged that scientific and academic publications aid
in providing desired information and proof for interested students, apprentice medical
practitioners and evolving researchers which contribute to their professional growth.
Therefore, for the publication to serve the purposes mentioned above successfully, proper
scrutiny of the scripts submitted to academic journals is required. The investigation is
undertaken to determine the manuscripts' value, quality, convenience, methodological rigour and
if it is publishable before justifying them to appear in the electronic and print media ( Henly,
Bennett, & Dougherty, 2010).
Steps in the Publication Process
According to Brantley (2017), a manuscript has to go various stages before the actual
publication. The initial phase of publication is the submission of the article to the academic

3
PUBLICATION PLAN
journal by the author. Moreover, the first step of the publication procedure is an editorial review
whose primary objective is to evaluate the merits and quality of the script.
Figure 1 on the next page has elaborated several tasks shared among the members of the
editorial team. It comprises of all the steps that are likely to occur in the publication process. The
editor, who in most cases is the chief journal editor, evaluates presented scripts in an attempt of
determining the manuscript's applicability and whether it is suitable to go through peer reviews
(Brantley, 2017). Moreover, the article undergoes further scrutiny at the editorial assistant, for
instance, checking for its originality through a system which detects the similarity of the
materials. The manuscript may suffer rejection at this stage from unwarranted similarities, or
instead, it may not be submitted and be given back to the writer for the suggested adjustments.
Further assessments are carried out by the managing editor on the readability and the level to
which the manuscript is in keeping with the journal’s canons as well as usage of the international
reporting canons (Gottfredson, Garvey, & Goodnow, 1977).
Figure 1: The publication procedure, consisting of peer review

4
PUBLICATION PLAN
The publication procedure, consisting of peer review
EA: - Editorial Assistant; EiC: - Editor‐in‐Chief; ME:- Managing Editor
Submission of
Manuscripts
Submissio
RejectingEiC does Initial
EA
Checking
Submission of
Manuscripts
ME assigns to
Rejecting
Initial Check to
Check by Managing
Editor
ME assigns
Reviews Return
Editor considers Reviewing and Making
Decision.
Recommendation
Acceptance
Rejection
Revision
ME or EiC sends
back to editor for
EiC Approval of the Accepted
Decision
Managing Editor
Exported
production
First
Observation
Acceptance

5
PUBLICATION PLAN
After the satisfaction of the managing editor, he/she recognizes and allocates about three
reviewers with relevant understanding, expertise, procedural rigour and knowledge to evaluate
the manuscript and comment on its worth, objectivity, quality and if it is publishable. Responses
of peer reviewers assist the editor in deciding whether the manuscript is to undergo rejection,
acceptance or revision before it can be acknowledged and allowed to be published.
When the manuscript has been acknowledged and accepted, the process goes to the third
step known as production stage. This stage makes sure that a clear and coherent article which
does not have spelling errors is published and presented in the standard form of an actual item
(Gottfredson, Garvey, & Goodnow, 1977). Similarly, the writers of the articles are required to
scrutinize and approve their materials earlier in the last step. The final step is a managerial
procedure that ensures that the report is allocated a suitable tracking number known as Digital
Object Identifier (DOI) (Gottfredson, Garvey, & Goodnow, 1977)
Importance of Publication Process in Assuring Quality
After researchers have done their findings and conclusions, they will look for academic
community and those who may be interested, and formally present to them their results. The
academic community will then follow the steps described above mainly for quality assurance.
According to (Letherby, Bywaters, & Ali, 2007), quality assurance techniques in the publication
process are very crucial in making sure that the research articles are trustworthy and are of high
excellence.
In whatever steps followed, formal publication process always involves quality assurance
through peer review. This article evaluation consists of editors and assessors who undertake the
assessments on matters of similarity, relevance and rationality of the research findings along with

6
PUBLICATION PLAN
the suitability of the research with the extent and methodology of the seminar, journal or
publication sequences.
Quality assurance for publications involves the presentation, in addition to the content
before they are available for print (Lindsey, 1978). Consequently, the editors, in most cases,
devote their substantial time in editing and standardizing the findings to make sure that the
results are evidently and consistently presented.
The process of publication guarantees quality assurance through critical analysis and
evaluation of a single article which is aimed at making sure that only the research that meets the
required standards and passes quality threshold is financed and formally printed (Kearney &
Freda, 2005). Similarly, the process of ensuring high quality and assessing scholarly journals,
institutions and authors is considered to make sure that decisions about research findings and
conclusions are the outcome of the evidence-based findings and assessment.
The publication process is critical in the academic community since it ensures high
quality of the research papers (Kearney & Freda, 2005). Besides, it enlightens on crucial
decisions about the financing of a research project and the researcher, about procedures of
conducting research, about manuscripts that are to be published and distributed, and about the
articles that the authors and other interested individuals should choose to read. Finally, it forms
an essential foundation for trust that makes the work of the academic researchers to be
trustworthy.
.Merits of Peer Review
Peer review is an evaluation of scripts handed in to the journals by professionals who are
typically not among the members of editors. It is a significant extension of the scientific process
since impartiality, objectivity, self-regulation, and critical evaluation is an inherent part of all

7
PUBLICATION PLAN
scholarly work. According to Kearney & Freda, 2005), peer review is a fundamental mechanism
in the scientific research and academic life. Peer reviewing is an acknowledged element of the
publishing procedure, expert training and educational recompense arrangement (Frelich, 2013)
Peer review entails assessing the academic articles through a specially chosen team of
professionals from the same field of training. The procedure is adopted by editors to find out the
capacity, weakness as well as the potentiality of the suggested piece of work ready to be
presented to the print media (Poster, Pearson, & Pierson, 2011). Moreover, it is a crucial
component of the publication process which tries to maintain excellence and merit in articles
scientifically printed, scholastic and formal papers (Henly, Bennett, & Dougherty, 2010).
Bordage & Caelleigh (2001) affirmed that peer review is an excellent acceptable procedure
which aids editors to evaluate manuscripts, and acts as a benchmark for assessing papers that
require knowledge of an expert. Peer review is an integral element of the publication procedure
(Christenbery, 2010).
The process of peer review provides writers with an opportunity of improving the quality
and clarity of their manuscripts. The responses given by the reviewers act as a guide to the
editors of journals and editorial staffs to enable them to make an informed decision on whether a
manuscript is of substandard or is of an acceptable standard (Braithwaite & Lipworth, 2011).
According to Christenbery (2010), editors profoundly depend on the procedures of peer
reviewing to enlighten them on the selections of manuscripts with sound quality among the
numerous scripts. Similarly, the system of peer review is beneficial even to those who review
documents since the process enables them to improve their understanding and skill in particular
areas. Poster, Pearson, & Pierson (2011) argued that being a peer reviewer is acknowledged as
contributing to the academic society in single enactment assessments. The practice can as well

8
PUBLICATION PLAN
have an emotional impact on the community as a whole when ramification of social policies are
proposed or concluded by the published article (Christenbery, 2010). Moreover, publications of
scholarly papers which are well transcribed, procedurally all-encompassing and well-read
research assist in developing various occupations ,for instance, nursing.
There are two categories of peer assessment, that is, open and closed peer review. The
latter is more common while the former is becoming more popular than reviews. Closed-review
operates in twofold approaches: single-blind and double-blind. Single blind is the furthermost
consistent techniques applied in the mainstream of professional papers, mainly biomedical
articles (Kearney & Freda, 2005). Similarly, the double-blind review is typically implemented by
several biomedical experts, and nearly 95% of the nursing use this method of evaluation (Baggs,
2011).
Alternatively, open peer assessment is an approach whereby researchers and reviewers
are well familiar with one another all through the procedures of publication. Several established
companies encourage the use of this approach. Nevertheless, a review which is open has received
severe criticism concerning incidences relating to open access online journal (Bernstein, 2015).
The rise of open access works best at high volume, but it does not demonstrate the societal
applicability that specific traditional journals uphold. Open access journals mean that they are
peer-reviewed, free to online access and can be shared and used by interested users. Open access
is advantageous to the authors since availability and visibility of the articles are
warranted (Bernstein, 2015). Besides, it encourages low cost of publication and faster
publication compared to those traditional, subscription-based and published journals.

9
PUBLICATION PLAN
The Role of Publication Metric in Deciding the Journal to Source
Numerous and ready scientific articles are available online, and several research papers
are open access and do not need any subscription. Therefore, up-to-date information about
medicine and science has turned out to be more comfortable to access than in the past.
Consequently, with the many data available, researchers have to identify approaches to filter all
this data and find out high quality and most relevant articles and journals to read. Presently,
readers can assess the existing scientific literature by applying three different tools: altmetrics
(alternative metrics), citation metrics and usage metrics (Armbruster, 2009).
The impact factor is one of the most long-standing quality indicators of the scientific,
academic works. An impact factor makes a comparison between the worth of one journal to
another in a particular discipline. The effectiveness of this parameter is subject to the
correctness of the citation counts applied in its computation (Armbruster, 2009). The impact
factor has been the excellent standard for evaluating the quality of the scientific literature. It has
been applied by clinicians and researchers in determining articles they should read and sites to
submit their work. Besides, it has been used by academic administrators to evaluate the worth of
a scientific investigation of members of the same faculty along with their financing perspective
and appropriateness for upgrading. However, this indicator is a lagging indicator. The citations to
print journals accumulate slowly.
Usage metrics have emerged as a relatively new method of assessing the impact of
articles published in the scientific literature. The primary parameters are pages that have been
viewed and full-text documents that have been downloaded (Armbruster, 2009). The main
benefit of usage metrics is that data set off to accumulate instantly after publishing and can easily
be retrieved. Moreover, it allows usage of articles by unprofessional as well as scientific

10
PUBLICATION PLAN
audiences to be evaluated. However, it can be misleading in the sense that a person can have
many page views but without actual readers, and the number of full- texts that have been
downloaded cannot be equated with the actual number of articles that have been read.
The main objective of alternative metrics is to quantify how scientists and the general
public discover, pass on, and debate papers in the literature using non-traditional lines of
communication such as Facebook, and Twitter. Altmetrics has increased popularity in usage as
an additional measure of the quality of articles since the new generation has accepted social
media as an approach to discover and share research.

11
PUBLICATION PLAN
References
Armbruster, C. (2009). Whose Metrics? On Building Citation, Usage and Access Metrics as
Information Service for Scholars. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1464706
Baggs, J. G. (2011). The dissertation manuscript option, internet posting, and
publication. Research in Nursing & Health, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1002/nur.20420
Bernstein, P. R. (2015). Faculty of 1000 evaluation for The Role of Target Binding Kinetics in
Drug Discovery. F1000 - Post-publication peer review of the biomedical literature.
doi:10.3410/f.725890287.793512688
Bordage, G., & Caelleigh, A. S. (2001). How To Read “Review Criteria for Research
Manuscripts”. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 909-910. doi:10.1097/00001888-200109000-
00014
Braithwaite, J., & Lipworth, W. (2011). Faculty of 1000 evaluation for The productivity crisis in
pharmaceutical R&D. F1000 - Post-publication peer review of the biomedical literature.
doi:10.3410/f.11608956.12680055
Brantley, J. (2017). Beyond Words: Illuminated Manuscripts in Boston Collections by Jeffrey F.
Hamburger et al., and: Beyond Words: Illuminated Manuscripts in Boston Collections
eds. by Jeffrey F. Hamburger et al. Manuscript Studies: A Journal of the Schoenberg
Institute for Manuscript Studies, 2(1), 256-261. doi:10.1353/mns.2017.0007
Christenbery, T. L. (2010). Manuscript peer review: A guide for advanced practice
nurses. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 23(1), 15-22.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-7599.2010.00572.x
Donovan, S. K. (2007). How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing
(review). Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 39(1), 351-355. doi:10.1353/scp.2007.0030

12
PUBLICATION PLAN
Frelich, L. (2013). Faculty of 1000 evaluation for Greenhouse-gas emissions from soils
increased by earthworms. F1000 - Post-publication peer review of the biomedical
literature. doi:10.3410/f.718002379.793475379
Gottfredson, S. D., Garvey, W. D., & Goodnow, J. I. (1977). Quality indicators in the scientific
journal article publication process. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research in Scientific
Communication, Dept. of Psychology Johns Hopkins University.
Henly, S. J., Bennett, J. A., & Dougherty, M. C. (2010). Scientific and statistical reviews of
manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research: Comparison of completeness, quality, and
usefulness. Nursing Outlook, 58(4), 188-199. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2010.04.004
Kearney, M. H., & Freda, M. C. (2005). Nurse editors' views on the peer review
process. Research in Nursing & Health, 28(6), 444-452. doi:10.1002/nur.20104
Letherby, G., Bywaters, P., & Ali, Z. (2007). Extending social research: Application,
implementation and publication. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
Lindsey, D. (1978). The scientific publication system in social science. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Poster, E., Pearson, G. S., & Pierson, C. (2011). Publication Ethics: Its Importance to Readers,
Authors, and the Profession. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 48(1), 1-1.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6163.2011.00323.x
Rouault, G. (2015). Writing for Academic Publication: Advice Drawn from Experienced
International Journal Editors. Language Education in Asia, 5(2), 186-197.
doi:10.5746/leia/14/v5/i2/a02/rouault