Displaying publications 1 - 20 of 29 in total

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Mat Daud AA
    Technol Forecast Soc Change, 2021 Jun;167:120674.
    PMID: 33612869 DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120674
    This short research note describes and summarizes several recent peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed studies on the concept of flattening-the-curve (FTC) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This note also highlights contradictory findings of these studies in terms of the effect of FTC on the total number of infections (the final epidemic size), and poses a research problem for future studies.
    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review
  2. Zulkapli NA, Abdullah JM
    Malays J Med Sci, 2019 Jul;26(4):1-4.
    PMID: 31496888 DOI: 10.21315/mjms2019.26.4.1
    The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences (MJMS) would like to present a brief report of its progress in 2018 with a purpose to provide a clear picture of how it has performed so far. This report may considered as a helpful information, especially, to future authors who wish to submit their articles to MJMS. This report summarised the information of the total of original manuscripts received based on manuscript type, authors' country of origin and total of original manuscripts received by month. It also reveals the statistics of the final decisions made based on manuscript type, the accept-reject ratio by the editor and the time taken from submission to decision for all manuscripts submitted throughout 2018.
    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review, Research
  3. Pezhman Ghadimi, Noordin Mohd Yusof, Muhamad Zameri Mat Saman, Mahmood Asadi
    MyJurnal
    Academic and corporate interest in sustainable product and process development has risen considerably
    in recent years. This can be seen by the number of papers published and in particular by special issued of journals. This paper reports the results of a review of published peer-reviewed literature from 1987 to 2012 to provide an up-to-date picture of sustainability and sustainable assessment. A structured methodology is followed to narrow down the search from around 3500 papers to 111. A variety of different sustainability assessment methodologies are reviewed in two classified research areas: product sustainability assessment and process sustainability assessment. In presenting a detailed taxonomy of product and process sustainability assessment methods, the paper also outlines the advantages and weaknesses of the sustainability assessment methods. The review sheds light on the weak points of current research in this area. The paper also highlights several key issues which have to be taken into account in attempting to develop a product or process sustainability assessment research paradigm for future applications in manufacturing systems.
    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review
  4. Zulkapli NA, Sobi S, Mohd Zubaidi NA, Abdullah JM
    Malays J Med Sci, 2016 Jul;23(4):1-4.
    PMID: 27660539 DOI: 10.21315/mjms2016.23.4.1
    The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences (MJMS) has conducted a simple analysis of its scholarly publication, based on the auto-generated data compiled from ScholarOne Manuscripts(™), an innovative, web-based, submission and peer-review workflow solution for scholarly publishers. The performance of the MJMS from 2014-2015 is reported on in this editorial, with a focus on the pattern of manuscript submission, geographical contributors and the acceptance-rejection rate. The total number of manuscript submissions has increased from 264 in 2014, to 272 in 2015. Malaysians are the main contributors to the MJMS. The total number of manuscript rejections following the review process was 79 (29.9%) in 2014, increasing to 92 (33.8%) the following year, in accordance with the exacting quality control criteria applied by the journal's editor to the submitted manuscripts.
    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review
  5. Lapeña JFF, Munk PL, Saw A, Peh WC
    Med J Aust, 2019 05;210(8):347-348.e1.
    PMID: 30945753 DOI: 10.5694/mja2.50131
    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review*
  6. Hasan SS, Ahmadi K
    Acad Med, 2017 02;92(2):140.
    PMID: 28118247 DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001517
    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review, Research/standards*
  7. Brown NW, Orchard G, Rhodes A
    Br J Biomed Sci, 2020 Oct;77(4):159-167.
    PMID: 33252323 DOI: 10.1080/09674845.2020.1827578
    Each year the British Journal of Biomedical Science publishes a 'What have we learned' editorial designed to introduce readers within the major disciplines of laboratory medicine to developments outside their immediate area. In addition it is designed to inform a wider readership of the advances in the diagnosis and treatment of disease. To this end, in 2020 the journal published 39 articles covering the disciplines within Biomedical Science in the 4 issues comprising volume 77. These included a review of COVID-19 in this issue, 27 original articles, 6 Biomedical Science 'In Brief' and 4 case histories. 27 of the articles involved molecular techniques, with one of these comparing results with a mass spectrometry based method. The preponderance of molecular genetic studies gives us a good idea of the likely future direction of the disciplines.
    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review, Research/trends*
  8. Ibrahim S, Saw A
    Malays Orthop J, 2020 Jul;14(2):1-6.
    PMID: 32983372 DOI: 10.5704/MOJ.2007.003
    Predatory journals and conferences have little or no peer review. Their raison d'être is for making money through the article processing charges and the conference registration fees. Without a critical evaluation, predatory journals publishing flawed results and conclusions would cloud the existing scientific literature. Predatory conferences are the offshoots of predatory publishing. The conferences are not organised by learned societies, but by profit-making event organisers. There is a need for awareness among researchers and clinicians regarding predatory publishing. The scourge of predatory publishing and conferencing should be more often highlighted during scientific meetings and publication courses.
    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review
  9. Fernandez-Llimos F, Pharmacy Practice 2018 peer reviewers
    Pharm Pract (Granada), 2019 03 21;17(1):1502.
    PMID: 31015883 DOI: 10.18549/PharmPract.2019.1.1502
    Selecting peer reviewers is a crucial stage of the editorial process that ensures the quality of scholarly publications. An alternative to selecting peer reviewers from data bases created with expressions of interest of volunteers consists in systematically searching PubMed for similar articles and inviting their authors to act as peer reviewers. Although this process might identify more appropriate peers, it also can increase the time of the editorial process. In 2018, Pharmacy Practice had to invite 4.70 (SE=0.33) potential reviewers per one accepting. The time from the first reviewer invitation to the last reviewer report received was 61 days (SE=2.1). These figures confirm the existence of a peer review crisis which is significantly increasing the publication delay.
    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review
  10. Rampal L, Liew BS, Oothuman P, Philip R, Mohd Sidik S, Hoe VC, et al.
    Med J Malaysia, 2020 07;75(4):323-324.
    PMID: 32728008
    Proper understanding the 'Instructions to authors' for a particular journal is the key towards successful submission of a manuscript which will lead to it being published. Common errors that are frequently made by authors in their submission to the Malaysia Journal of Malaysia (MJM) that lead to rejection of their submission or requiring major revisions or minor revisions are listed and discussed in this article. Outright rejection prior to even a peer review process may be made for an article due to: it is poorly written or when there is suspicion on the authenticity of the submission, which contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarised, it is a duplicate submission or not in the format required by the MJM. The editor in charge of the issue makes a recommendation to the Editor in Chief for the final decision.
    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review
  11. Sacks G, Riesenberg D, Mialon M, Dean S, Cameron AJ
    PLoS One, 2020;15(12):e0243144.
    PMID: 33326431 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243144
    INTRODUCTION: There is emerging evidence that food industry involvement in nutrition research may bias research findings and/or research agendas. However, the extent of food industry involvement in nutrition research has not been systematically explored. This study aimed to identify the extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed articles from a sample of leading nutrition-related journals, and to examine the extent to which findings from research involving the food industry support industry interests.

    METHODS: All original research articles published in 2018 in the top 10 most-cited nutrition- and dietetics-related journals were analysed. We evaluated the proportion of articles that disclosed involvement from the food industry, including through author affiliations, funding sources, declarations of interest or other acknowledgments. Principal research findings from articles with food industry involvement, and a random sample of articles without food industry involvement, were categorised according to the extent to which they supported relevant food industry interests.

    RESULTS: 196/1,461 (13.4%) articles reported food industry involvement. The extent of food industry involvement varied by journal, with The Journal of Nutrition (28.3%) having the highest and Paediatric Obesity (3.8%) having the lowest proportion of industry involvement. Processed food manufacturers were involved in the most articles (77/196, 39.3%). Of articles with food industry involvement, 55.6% reported findings favourable to relevant food industry interests, compared to 9.7% of articles without food industry involvement.

    CONCLUSION: Food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research in leading nutrition-related journals is commonplace. In line with previous literature, this study has shown that a greater proportion of peer-reviewed studies involving the food industry have results that favour relevant food industry interests than peer-reviewed studies without food industry involvement. Given the potential competing interests of the food industry, it is important to explore mechanisms that can safeguard the integrity and public relevance of nutrition research.

    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review
  12. Jamali HR, Nicholas D, Sims D, Watkinson A, Herman E, Boukacem-Zeghmouri C, et al.
    PLoS One, 2023;18(2):e0281058.
    PMID: 36791119 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281058
    INTRODUCTION: As part of the Harbnger-2 project, this study aimed to discover the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on junior researchers' work-life, career prospects, research and publishing practices and networking.

    METHODS: An online international survey of 800 early career researchers (ECRs) was conducted in 2022. A questionnaire was developed based on three rounds of interviews and distributed using multiple channels including publishers, social media, and direct email to ECRs.

    RESULTS: The impact of the pandemic on career prospects, morale, job security, productivity, ability to network and collaborate, and quality and speed of peer review has on the whole been more negative than positive. A quarter of ECRs shifted their research focus to pandemic-related topics and half of those who did, benefited largely due to increased productivity and impact. The majority worked remotely/from home and more than two-thirds of those who did so benefitted from it. While virtual or hybrid conferences have been embraced by the majority of ECRs, around a third still preferred face-to-face only conferences. The use of library online platforms, Sci-Hub, ResearchGate, Google Scholar and smartphone to search and access full-text papers increased. ECRs prioritised journals with fast submission procedures for the publishing of their papers and spent more time on increasing the visibility of their research. Fees were a problem for publishing open access.

    CONCLUSION: Although, generally, the pandemic negatively impacted many aspects of ECRs' work-life, certain research areas and individuals benefited from being more appreciated and valued, and, in some cases, resulted in increased resources, better productivity and greater impact. Changes, such as the use of digital technologies and remote working created new opportunities for some ECRs. While continuing work flexibility and hybrid conferences might benefit some ECRs, institutions should also take measures to help those ECRs whose career and productivity have been adversely impacted.

    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review
  13. Zulkapli NA, Abdullah JM
    Malays J Med Sci, 2017 Dec;24(6):1-4.
    PMID: 29379381 DOI: 10.21315/mjms2017.24.6.1
    This editorial aims to report on the performance of the Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences (MJMS) in the year 2016. The performance report is based on an analysis of the auto-generated data compiled from the ScholarOne Manuscripts™. It will specifically focus on the pattern of manuscript submission, geographical distribution of contributors, manuscript submission by month and the acceptance-rejection rate of post-review manuscripts. It will also discuss the effects of the decision to raise the article acceptance standards. The MJMS would also like to share the news of its receipt of the 2016 Current Research in Malaysia (CREAM) award. This honour was bestowed upon us by the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) of Malaysia, on November 1, 2016.
    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review, Research
  14. Dewiputri WI, Mohamad I
    Malays J Med Sci, 2011 Jan;18(1):1-5.
    PMID: 22135566 MyJurnal
    This special editorial assessed the recent developments in Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences (MJMS) and examined the characteristics of the submission, peer review, and publication processes for MJMS. This retrospective analysis used information about the manuscripts submitted to MJMS during the one-year period (from 1 June 2010 to 31 May 2010) since the start of current online submission and review system (ScholarOne(™) Manuscripts, Thomson Reuters). In addition, we also discussed the future directions of MJMS. Finally, we would like to recommend an annual internal audit for MJMS, which is very useful to monitor the growth of this journal progressively.
    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review
  15. Dhillon KS
    Malays Orthop J, 2015;9(1):47-59.
    MyJurnal
    Conflicts of interest in medicine has created deep concerns about the integrity of medicine and raised doubts about the trustworthiness of the medical professional. New stories of conflict of interest in medicine have become a commonplace. The interactions between the medical professional and the biomedical device as well as the pharmaceutical industry has become so pervasive that the primary interest of the medical professional in protecting and promoting the welfare of the patient has been compromised. The professional judgement and actions have been influenced by secondary interests, the major fungible and quantifiable being financial interest. The industry influence not only affects the way we practice orthopaedics but also affects medical education and peer review publications. Peer review publications have been shown to exaggerate benefits of the industry products while at the same time downplaying the risks. These conflicts of interest in orthopaedic surgery are particularly common in spinal and joint replacement surgery where joint replacement has been described as a ‘fashion trade’. The introduction of new products appears to be an uncontrolled experiment which has been hijacked by large corporations. This article explores the unhealthy pervasive interaction between the orthopaedic surgeon and the medical devices as well as the pharmaceutical industry. It highlights how the biomedical and the pharmaceutical industry dominate all aspects of the healthcare system. With its wealth and political clout, its influence is present everywhere, from the use of devices and drugs, research, publications, trials, education and even formulation of CGPs.
    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review, Research
  16. Abdullah JM
    Malays J Med Sci, 2014 Dec;21(Spec Issue):1-5.
    PMID: 25941457
    The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences and the Orient Neuron Nexus have amalgated to publish a yearly special issue based on neuro- and brain sciences. This will hopefully improve the quality of peer-reviewed manuscripts in the field of fundamental, applied, and clinical neuroscience and brain science from Asian countries. One focus of the Universiti Sains Malaysia is to strengthen neuroscience and brain science, especially in the field of neuroinformatics.
    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review
  17. Yap, C.K.
    MyJurnal
    If we were given a questionnaire of “How do we measure a researcher as a true scientist? with optional answers like (a) Having a good number of publications, (b) having attending numerous conferences, (c) with a high popularity as always appeared in mass media, and (d) good international networking and good public relations. Options (c) and (d) always come later after option (a) has been achieved, while option (b) can be simply achieved or abstract be accepted for presentation in any conference. Hitherto, publishing in any peer-reviewed journals carry a certain quality since they are highly subjected to peer review evaluation before the paper can be accepted for publication in a journal. Needless to say, those constructive comments given by the reviewers are very crucial in shaping our scientific understanding in our subject area rather than rejection experience (Yap, 2009). Having said so, option (a) will definitely be the best answer. The fact is that option (a) should not be argued whatsoever as the best answer [since publications speaks louder than anything else] and options (a), (b) and (c) are supplementary criteria to option (a) but they are not as vital as option (a). When we are asked ‘What is your scientific research performance or research output?’, the answer could always be ‘Having a good number of publications.’ Then, the next question forwarded is that ‘What is the quality and impact of your published papers to the scientific community?’ Of course, good and high impact factor journals always accept papers with high novelty in the subject area. Therefore, papers published in good journals are always highly cited and subsequently resulting in high impact (or citations) of the research done to the scientific community. However, the last question is sometimes very subjective and difficult to answer until h-index is introduced and discussed among the researchers. This paper aimed to discuss the h-index based on Elsevier’s Scopus database as an indicator of research achievement for young Malaysian scientists.
    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review
  18. Low, W.Y.
    MyJurnal
    Research publication is an essential part of scientific research process. Writing is a means of communication of scientific work, a means to disseminate the research findings to the public and also to their peers. A scientific paper is a written and published report describing original research results. Getting a paper published in a well-respected peer-reviewed journal is an important goal for any researcher. It is an indication of research success. There are many reasons why people write and this ranged from pure altruism to pleasure to intellectual pursuits to contribute to the scientific knowledge, to improve patient care and to benefit the community and mankind. Reasons to write vary from one individual to another individual. Writing can be difficult and it is seen as a chore, such as, fulfilling a minimum requirement of an organization to get a job, a job confirmation or a promotion, and career development.
    Matched MeSH terms: Peer Review
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links