pReviewing is often anonymous, with only the editor knowing the important contribution you’ve made. However, many reviewers attest that it is work that makes them feel good, knowing that they have been able to support a fellow researcher. While a lot of reviewing is anonymous, there are schemes to recognize the important contribution of reviewers. Your work as a reviewer will be of interest to appointment or promotion committees who are looking for evidence of service to the profession. A growing number of publishers offer a transfer or cascade service to authors when their paper is rejected./p
h2Exchange of information/h2
pThe reviewers also need to be able to provide unbiased reports on the article. Researchers consistently tell us that their final published article is better than the version they submitted before peer review. 91% of respondents to a Sense about Science peer review survey said that their last paper was improved through peer review. A Taylor Francis study supports this, finding that most researchers, across all subject areas, rated the contribution of peer review towards improving their article as 8 or above out of 10. It could be that the study was not designed to analyze sex and/or gender, nevertheless, it is important to consider if sex and gender are relevant to the topic of the study, and whether the study follows relevant guidelines, wherever applicable./p
pDo not forget that, even after finalizing your review, you must treat the article and any linked files or data as confidential documents. This means you must not share them or information about the review with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. If the journal in question does not require you to respond to a list of specific questions, you might find it useful to consider these questions and the below generic points when you are preparing your review report./p
h3Triple-blind peer review/h3
pThe authors’ overarching assessment of online dating sites is that scientifically, they just don’t measure up. Another important role of peer review is to provide constructive criticism and feedback to authors. Peer reviewers not only assess the quality of the research but also provide suggestions for improvement./p
h3CFPB Reports Highlight Problems with Tenant Background Checks/h3
pThe opinions expressed in all articles published here are those of the specific author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dove Medical Press Ltd or any of its employees. We offer real benefits to our authors, including fast-track processing of papers. The firm is responsible for evaluating actions to promptly remediate nonconforming engagements when appropriate, and for remediating weaknesses in its system of quality control, if any. When we see legislative developments affecting the accounting profession, we speak up with a collective voice and advocate on your behalf. Our advocacy partners are state CPA societies and other professional organizations, as we inform and educate federal, state and local policymakers regarding key issues./p
pPeer reviewers and editors are gatekeepers of the research literature used to document and communicate human discovery. Reviewers, therefore, need a sound understanding of their role and obligations to ensure the integrity of this process. This also helps them maintain quality research, and to help protect the public from flawed and misleading research findings. Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilizing rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication. For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project– provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well-regarded./p
pVolume II contains complete results of the Peer Review process, including quantitative scores specific to programs and activity areas. In February 2017, the OECD released the terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review of the Action 13 minimum standard. The peer review is conducted in accordance with these terms of reference and methodologies by an ad hoc group comprising delegates of both Working Party 6 and Working Party 10 , under the aegis of the Inclusive Framework. The Inclusive Framework has released a number of guidance and handbooks to assist and give greater certainty to tax administrations and MNE Groups alike on the implementation and operation of Country-by-Country Reporting under BEPS Action 13. The OECD provides astandardised electronic formatfor the exchange of CbC Reports between jurisdictions – theCbCR XML Schema– as well as the relatedUser Guide. Against that background, themultilateral Competent Authority Agreement on the Exchange of CbC Reports has been developed, based on the Convention./p
pThere is poor regard of the journal’s conventions, or for academic writing in general. If you do not intend to make the revisions suggested by the journal and resubmit your paper for consideration, please make sure you formally withdraw your paper from consideration by the journal before you submit elsewhere. The work is of a high enough standard to be published in the journal. Your conclusions are reliable, significant, and supported by the research. The study design and methodology are appropriate and described so that others could replicate what you have done. Expert tips and guidance on getting published and maximizing the impact of your research./p
pThere is the opportunity for the senior reviewer to give recognition to the co-reviewer through the Reviewer Recognition Service and where we publish peer review reports by adding their name . BMC is piloting with StatReviewer, a software programme that uses text mining and machine learning to assess basic statistical reporting and adherence to relevant reporting guidelines, which works alongside real peer reviewers. Three BMC journals are involved in part one of the pilot, Trials, Critical Care, and Arthritis Research and Therapy, the results of which will be available soon, and discussions are currently underway for part two. A Registered Report is an article format in which the rationale for a study and the proposed methodology – the “study protocol” – are pre-registered with the journal and submitted for peer review before the research takes place ./p
h2How to Format a Peer Review Report/h2
pLastly, considering that the field of online dating research is growing over time, it is likely that studies under the process of submission or publication have been not included in this review. Contrary to other internet disorders, problematic online dating research is still in its initial stage, and as of today, online dating has not been a href=https://datingranking.org/meeyou-review/https://www.datingranking.org/meeyou-review//a particularly studied in terms of its problematic use. Therefore, the present review paper scans previous literature in the field of online dating that relates to longer or higher use of online dating sites and/or dating apps which may be one of the first steps towards the study of excessive and/or problematic use of online dating sites./p
pB. GAGAS for financial audits provide for reporting on internal control of an entity. Volume I contains a brief overview of the Peer Review process, comments from reviewers, and program responses to comments. One of the conditions for receiving and using CbC Reports is that a jurisdiction must have in place the necessary framework and infrastructure to ensure the appropriate use of CbCR information. A particular bilateral relationship under the CbC MCAA becomes effective only if both jurisdictions have the Convention in effect, have filed the required notifications under Section 8 and have listed each other. This provides an overview for MNEs and tax administrations as to which members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS have introduced a CbC reporting obligation and basic facts concerning when these obligations come into effect and how they operate./p
