Without experience doing reviews, it is likely that a good review will take a long time to complete (. > half a day). However, it does get easier, and I believe that after practice, a good review can be completed within a couple of hours, provided you know the discipline well.
Sushama is doing her postdoctoral research in the laboratory of Dr. Hongtao Yu at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas TX. She obtained her PhD from the laboratory of Dr. Gary J Gorbsky at Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation (OMRF), Oklahoma city, OK. She is interested in understanding the mechanisms that regulate mitotic progression in mammalian cell lines. She can be reached by email at @.
Section of the paper What it should contain Introduction & Background
site design / logo © 2017 Stack Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa with attribution required . rev
Cookies are used on this website to improve your user experience
The recent cases of Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii  in anaesthesiology have focussed attention on the role that journals play in perpetuating scientific fraud as well as how they can deal with it. In the Boldt case, the Editors-in-Chief of 18 specialist journals (generally anaesthesia and intensive care) made a joint statement regarding 88 published clinical trials conducted without Ethics Committee approval. In the Fujii case, involving nearly 200 papers, the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia , which published 24 of Fujii's papers, has accepted that its handling of the issue was inadequate. Following publication of a Letter to the Editor from Kranke and colleagues in April 2000,  along with a non-specific response from Dr. Fujii, there was no follow-up on the allegation of data manipulation and no request for an institutional review of Dr. Fujii's research. Anesthesia & Analgesia went on to publish 11 additional manuscripts by Dr. Fujii following the 2000 allegations of research fraud, with Editor Steven Shafer stating  in March 2012 that subsequent submissions to the Journal by Dr. Fujii should not have been published without first vetting the allegations of fraud. In April 2012 Shafer led a group of editors to write a joint statement,  in the form of an ultimatum made available to the public, to a large number of academic institutions where Fujii had been employed, offering these institutions the chance to attest to the integrity of the bulk of the allegedly fraudulent papers.
Authors beware: Avoid falling prey to predatory journals and bogus conferences Here, the discussion centers on predatory publishers, journals, service providers, and conferences. Shawn talks about her experience receiving authorship invitations from predatory journals and... Read More