![International Collaboration in Health Research: Evaluating a Systematic Review on [Country's Name] by Non-native Authors](/media/djmediatools/cache/images/x723x274-crop-90-ikdaf2cd3qtv1rkqp1sj6ccnzuavwc6srudo0nxz_1.png.pagespeed.ic.HW7uSdT1rb.png)
![International Collaboration in Health Research: Evaluating a Systematic Review on [Country's Name] by Non-native Authors](/media/djmediatools/cache/images/x119x130-crop-90-ikdaf2cd3qtv1rkqp1sj6ccnzuavwc6srudo0nxz_1.png.pagespeed.ic.wrYLO_DTxU.jpg)
In January 2021, the Scopus blog reported that preprints have been added to Scopus Author Profiles as a content type to help you get an early view into the research focus of peers and potential collaborators. Preprints can be a helpful complement to peer-reviewed literature to gain insight into researcher endeavors.
Some authors from a company recommended a peer reviewer on submitting their manuscript, who was then asked to review the manuscript. This reviewer recommended acceptance without change. One other reviewer recommended major revision (a methodological reviewer not a content expert) and the third reviewer recommended rejection.
Several years ago a previous editor of a journal accepted an article for publication following peer review. The current editor feels that the article should not have been accepted in the first instance, but rejected instead. After acceptance, the article was sent to a copy editor who was scheduled to work on it. However, the process was stopped by the previous editor and the copy editor. The language was very poor and was deemed to be un-editable. Also, the equations were incomprehensible.
A journal received a manuscript using secondary analysis of existing medical records in which there was no indication that ethics approval was obtained from a recognized ethics review board or that participants gave their informed consent to be included in the study. Instead, the authors explained that the study had been based on a secondary analysis of existing medical records and that no patient information had been passed on to a third party. Patients were identified by codes rather than names so that links could be made with different outcomes.
Read more: SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF MEDICAL RECORDS AND ETHICS COMMITTEE APPROVAL
In the intricate realm of patents, securing your intellectual property is a critical endeavor. Dive into the world of research patenting with these straightforward yet indispensable tips designed to optimize both recognition and safeguarding through Search Engine Optimization (SEO).
Dear scholars, we present 12 effective methods to elevate your academic standing:
Read more: Unlocking Academic Success: 12 Strategies to Boost Your Hirsch Index
A journal’s editors were informed about a plagiarism case just before the last step in the volume publication process. The publication fee for the paper was already paid by the author and the author completed and signed the publication agreement in which confirmed the paper's originality. The author was informed of the plagiarism issue and also that the paper would be withdrawn from publication. The author then requested reimbursement of the payment.
In one month we have received 11 manuscripts (9 case reports, 1 original study and 1 letter) written by authors from a European Union country. The manuscripts were submitted by the same corresponding author (author A) who was also the first author in all of the 11 manuscripts. Another author was the second author (author B) in 10 of the manuscripts. There were two other authors (authors C and D) in two of the manuscripts.
Read more: SEVEN PLAGIARIZED MANUSCRIPTS IN ONE MONTH BY THE SAME CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Paper A appeared in a foreign language journal, together with an English abstract. Paper B was submitted to editorial, and one of our referees alerted to the similar content.