Quality Assurance in E-Learning:
Article Revision Scope and article eligibility FResearch publishes articles within the life sciences and medicine without editorial bias, including papers reporting single findings, replications studies, and null results or negative findings. Referees are asked to assess the scientific validity of the article, rather than the novelty or interest levels.
FResearch also has an Open Data policy: Our formal invited open peer-review process occurs after the article is published. Before publication, articles undergo checks by the in-house editorial team to ensure they meet our basic criteria. Our pre-publication checks include: Authors are eligible to publish - authors must be active life scientists or clinicians and the research must have been carried out at a recognised institution.
Article types — articles are checked whether they meet the criteria and format of specific article types. Readability — as we do not copy edit articles, the standard of language and readability must be sufficient for readers how to write a systematic review paper be able to follow the article.
Plagiarism — articles are checked for plagiarism before publication. Methods section — we check that details of methods and resources are provided, so the work can be assessed we will ask you as an expert referee to comment whether more information would be required for others to reproduce the work.
Policies — we check that articles publishing research involving humans or animals adhere to our ethical policies. Data — we check that the source data underlying the results are made openly available we will ask you as an expert referee to comment whether the source data are appropriate for others to reproduce the work.
Referee eligibility Reviewers are chosen based on suggestions from the article authors, with the editorial team ensuring that they meet our referee criteria.
We encourage authors to suggest people who they know to be experts in their field of research, and we also offer authors a referee finder tool, which uses an algorithm to help identify suitable referees.
If a paper includes a lot of medical statistical analysis or new statistical methods, reviewers are also selected based on their knowledge of these fields. We are very appreciative of the work our referees do for us, and believe it is important for them to be rewarded for the time and effort they spend assessing papers, as peer review is an invaluable contribution to the scientific community.
Guidelines for reviewing When you agree to review an article published by FResearch you will receive an email with a link to the article, a proposed deadline, and information on how to submit your report.
The request will also appear in your My pages if you already have an account with us. If you have a potential competing interest please contact us before you begin to write the review, so that we can confirm you are eligible.
When you submit your report we also ask that you declare any competing interests here also, so that they can be displayed on the referee report when published. Approval status We ask referees to choose an approval status, which both helps directly determine whether an article is indexed with sites such as PubMed and Scopus, and provides readers with an at-a-glance view of your thoughts on the article.
Please bear in mind that the rating should be based on whether the paper is scientifically valid, not on the novelty or importance of an article. The approval statuses to choose from are: No or only minor changes are required. For original research, this means that the experimental design, including controls and methods, is adequate; results are presented accurately and the conclusions are justified and supported by the data.
The article is not fully technically sound in its current version, but your criticisms could be addressed with specific, sometimes major, revisions.
The article is of very poor quality and there are fundamental flaws in the article that seriously undermine the findings and conclusions. Writing the review We also ask referees for a review which reflects their assessment of the article, including any constructive criticisms they may have and suggestions for improvement.
The referee report form also includes questions to help referees focus on sections of the paper. These questions are compulsory and differ depending on the article type being reviewed.
When a referee submits their report we ask that they declare whether they have any competing interestswhich will be displayed on the referee report when published. We would encourage referees to adhere to the principles of the Open Science Peer Review Oath ; the Committee for Publication Ethics COPE has also developed guidelines for peer reviewerswhich outlines basic principles for peer reviewers.With the rise of literacy in America, a more systematic way of teaching handwriting was needed.
Enter Platt Rogers Spencer. Spencer used nature to teach penmanship — water worn pebbles served as his model for ovals and the waves on a lake served as the inspiration for the lines that connected his letters.
This bar-code number lets you verify that you're getting exactly the right version or edition of a book. The digit and digit formats both work.
Turnitin provides instructors with the tools to prevent plagiarism, engage students in the writing process, and provide personalized feedback.
If you’ve been invited to review an article and would like more information on our model, please visit our How it Works page. Alternatively, please use the menu to the left for more detailed information on the peer review process.
Depending on your area of specialization, a literature review can take various forms: argumentative review, integrative review, historical review, methodological review, systematic review, and theoretical review (See Reference 1).
At present there is low-quality evidence that the use of sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting at short-term and medium-term follow-ups. However, there is no evidence on their effects on sitting over longer follow-up periods.