TO THE EDITOR

TO THE EDITOR

We present a case study of scientific publishing which we base on a line of discussion we had in the official journal of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society having the Journal Impact Factor of 8.2 as of 2022, which places it a Q1 journal in the categories of behavioural sciences (t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Timo Partonen, Hasse Karlsson, Erkki Isometsä
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	The Finnish Foundation for Psychiatric Research 2023-10-01
Series:	Psychiatria Fennica
Subjects:	bipolar disorder ethical guidelines peer review scientific publishing
Online Access:	https://www.psykiatriantutkimussaatio.fi/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Psychiatria_Fennica-2023-Partonen.pdf

Similar Items

What makes an eLife paper in epidemiology and global health?
by: Mark Jit, et al.
Published: (2015-10-01)

Reviewing Peer Review
by: Barry London
Published: (2021-08-01)

The eLife approach to peer review
by: Randy Schekman, et al.
Published: (2013-04-01)

Editorial bullying: an exploration of acts impacting publication ethics and related environment
by: Fawad Javed, et al.
Published: (2024-02-01)

What does scientific publishing in public health mean?
by: Paolo Vineis
Published: (2022-11-01)

The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
by: Marco Giordan, et al.
Published: (2016-10-01)

The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 1; referees: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]
by: Marco Giordan, et al.
Published: (2016-04-01)

A year in the life of eLife
by: Randy Schekman, et al.
Published: (2013-10-01)

Scholarly information architecture, 1989 - 2015
by: P Ginsparg
Published: (2006-01-01)

Misunderstanding publication bias: editors are not blameless after all [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/YvAwwD]
by: Stephen Senn
Published: (2012-12-01)

A new twist on peer review
by: Mark Patterson, et al.
Published: (2018-06-01)

Stepping down
by: Eve Marder
Published: (2020-01-01)

Consultative review is worth the wait
by: Stuart RF King
Published: (2017-09-01)

The changing forms and expectations of peer review
by: S. P. J. M. ( Serge) Horbach, et al.
Published: (2018-09-01)

Priority of discovery in the life sciences
by: Ronald D Vale, et al.
Published: (2016-06-01)

The Relationship and Distinctions Between Editors and Reviewers
by: Serdar Oztora, et al.
Published: (2022-06-01)

Building a sustainable future for eLife
by: Randy Schekman, et al.
Published: (2016-09-01)

The pleasure of publishing
by: Vivek Malhotra, et al.
Published: (2015-01-01)

Predator in the Pool? A Quantitative Evaluation of Non-indexed Open Access Journals in Aquaculture Research
by: Jeff C. Clements, et al.
Published: (2018-03-01)

From Editor-in-Chief: Peer-review experience at the Heart, Vessels and Transplantation
by: Gulmira Kudaiberdieva
Published: (2020-03-01)

Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact
by: Björk Bo-Christer, et al.
Published: (2012-07-01)

Decisions, decisions
by: Peter Rodgers
Published: (2017-09-01)

Rooting out bias
by: Bridget M Kuehn
Published: (2017-09-01)

Making the most of peer review
by: Nikolai Slavov
Published: (2015-11-01)

An Interview with Aaron Barlow, editor of Academe, the magazine of the American Association of University Professors
by: Sean Scanlan, et al.
Published: (2014-03-01)

Publication guideline check! What do the academician, clinician and post-graduate student think? A cross-sectional study
by: Jayaditya Modak, et al.
Published: (2024-01-01)

Ethical guidelines for publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle: Update 2023
by: Stephan vonHaehling, et al.
Published: (2023-12-01)

Ethical guidelines for publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle: update 2021
by: Stephan vonHaehling, et al.
Published: (2021-12-01)

Beyond scoops to best practices
by: Eve Marder
Published: (2017-07-01)

Usos, limitaciones y prospectiva de la evaluación por pares
by: Faustino Moreno Ceja, et al.
Published: (2012-08-01)

Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry
by: Teixeira da Silva Jaime A., et al.
Published: (2016-12-01)

Is there a need for systematic education on peer-reviewing in Serbia?
by: Drvenica Ivana, et al.
Published: (2019-01-01)

The need for post-publication peer review in plant science publishing
by: Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Published: (2013-12-01)

Roles and Responsibilities for Peer Reviewers of International Journals
by: Carol Nash
Published: (2023-06-01)

A citation-based, author- and age-normalized, logarithmic index for evaluation of individual researchers independently of publication counts [version 1; referees: 2 approved]
by: Aleksey V. Belikov, et al.
Published: (2015-09-01)

Journal ratings as predictors of articles quality in Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences: an analysis based on the Italian Research Evaluation Exercise [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/5d3]
by: Andrea Bonaccorsi, et al.
Published: (2015-07-01)

Positive bias for European men in peer reviewed applications for faculty position at Karolinska Institutet [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
by: Sarah Holst, et al.
Published: (2018-08-01)

The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
by: Stefanie Gregorius, et al.
Published: (2017-12-01)

search.bioPreprint: a discovery tool for cutting edge, preprint biomedical research articles [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
by: Carrie L. Iwema, et al.
Published: (2016-07-01)

Biased under-reporting of research reflects biased under-submission more than biased editorial rejection [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/ViIqTX]
by: Iain Chalmers, et al.
Published: (2013-01-01)