DOI: 10.3897/ese.2026.e182718

Authors: Mario Malički, El Mehdi Ferrouhi, Hristina Prodanova, Seda Yilmaz Semerci, Taras Kotyk, Siphamandla Mncube

Abstract: Introduction: The number or percentage of journals publishing review reports or reviewer names remains unknown in today’s scholarly milieu.Methods: In January 2025 we sent a survey to all members of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE), followed by 2 reminder rounds, with 16 questions related to their journals, including type of peer review, availability of post-publication commenting, journal discipline, articles access type, and the manuscript submission system used by the journal. Survey responses were verified by checking the information listed on the journals’ websites.Results: A total of 84 participants completed the survey out of the 668 emails sent (of which 83 bounced, and 125 were unopened), leading to a response rate of 14% (84 out of 585 working or non-bounced emails), or 18% (84 out of 460) if only opened emails are counted. After data cleaning, information on 71 unique journals was collected, of which only 2 described their peer review type using the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) 2023 peer review taxonomy. Of the 71 journals, one published review reports with reviewer names and one without. Four journals allowed post-publication commenting on their websites. A little over a third of the journals used the Open Journal System (n = 22, or 31%) as their submission platform, were health sciences journals (n = 23, or 32%), were published by institutional publishers (n = 25, 35%), and more than half operated as Diamond open access (n = 42, 59%).Discussion: Only two journals in our survey published review reports alongside articles, and of the two, one published reviewer names (used open peer review) and one did not (transparent peer review). Additionally, only two journals described their peer review process on their websites using the NISO taxonomy. More research is needed to determine barriers and interventions for greater adoption of open and transparent peer review and the NISO taxonomy.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2026.e165929

Authors: Janaynne Carvalho do Amaral

Abstract: In July 2023, version 3.0 of standard terminology for peer review was published by the National Information Standards Organization. The terminology approaches four aspects of the peer review process: identity transparency, reviewer interacts with, review information published, and post-publication commenting. Using examples of open peer review models with public participation implemented by open access journals covering different subjects, the inclusion of two new categories in the next version of the terminology is proposed herein: manuscript review and pre-publica-tion commenting.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e159921

Authors: Jeremy Y. Ng, Daivat Bhavsar, Neha Dhanvanthry, Lex Bouter, Teresa Chan, Annette Flanagin, Alfonso Iorio, Cynthia Lokker, Hervé Maisonneuve, Ana Marušić, David Moher, Holger Cramer

Abstract: Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are advanced conversational programmes capable of performing tasks such as identifying methodological flaws, verifying references, and improving language clarity in manuscripts. Their use in peer review has the potential to enhance efficiency, reduce reviewer workload, and address inconsistencies in review quality. However, concerns remain regarding their reliability, ethical implications, and transparency in decision-making, and little is known about how peer reviewers perceive these tools.Objectives: To assess peer reviewers’ attitudes and perceptions towards the use of AI chatbots in the peer review process, including their familiarity with AI, perceived benefits and challenges, ethical considerations, and expectations for future roles.Methods: An international cross-sectional survey will be conducted among academic peer reviewers. The survey will collect data on participants’ prior experience with AI, perceptions of the utility of chatbots in supporting peer review, concerns related to ethics and transparency, and anticipated future applications.Results: This study will report descriptive and comparative analyses of reviewers’ responses, highlighting patterns in attitudes and perceptions by demographic and professional characteristics.Conclusions: The findings may offer evidence to inform the development of future policies and best practices for the ethical and effective integration of AI chatbots in peer review, with the goal of improving review quality while addressing potential risks.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e160424

Authors: Bor Luen Tang

Abstract: A paradox was observed with regard to an increase in gold open access publications despite the increase in financial constraints. While this was viewed positively by some as an indication of strategic adaptation and financial sacrifice to publish in open access journals with an impact factor instead of conference proceedings, there could be alternative explanations for the paradox. I propose views that reflect more negative issues with citations, peer review, and an arguably suboptimal mutually propagating publishing loop for gold open access publications.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e156907

Authors: Gina Joubert

Abstract: Background: As the number of journals and manuscripts continues to increase, so do the calls on researchers to review. To ensure that researchers accept or decline review invitations quickly and appropriately, review invitations should be informative.Objectives: Review invitations received by one health sciences researcher are sum-marized and invitations from journals listed in Web of Science, Scopus, or Directory of Open Access Journals are compared with invitations from journals listed in none of these three databases.Methods: This quantitative cross-sectional study included review invitations that the author received from journals between 1 January 2022 and 31 December 2024. For the analysis, only the most recent review invitation from each journal was included so that the results were not skewed towards journals that requested reviews more fre-quently. Requests for reviews of revised manuscripts were excluded.Results: Review invitations were received from 52 journals, 10 (19%) of which were not listed in any of the three databases. Emails from the 42 listed journals generally provided more, and more appropriate, information such as the manuscript abstract (98% of listed journals vs. 60% of unlisted journals) and addressing the email recipient correctly (62% of listed journals vs. 30% of unlisted journals). For 45% of listed journals and 50% of unlisted journals, the time to review was not stated in the email itself and 74% of listed journals and 80% of unlisted journals made no statement regarding the anonymity (or not) of reviewing.Conclusion: Minimum requirements for review invitations are recommended, as well as areas for further research.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e137675

Authors: Bahar Mehmani, Mario Malički

Abstract: To address the low overlap between reviewer comments and the publication recommendations they make, as well as to suggest guidance on what kind of peer review report would benefit journals and editors the most, we introduced structured peer review to Elsevier journals and analyzed its effect in our June 2024 paper: peerj.com/articles/17514/ . To further promote the implementation of the structured peer review process and help reviewers prepare thorough review reports, in this paper, we present our set of structured peer review questions in a checklist format.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e131528

Authors: Philippe C. Baveye

Abstract: Journal and book editors in most disciplines are faced with a flood of meta-analyses, which critical reviews have shown are not always of sufficient quality. In the short run, editors could give targeted instructions to authors and make specific recommendations to reviewers to ensure that not only meta-analyses but also research syntheses more broadly, published under their watch, meet acceptable publication standards. In order to achieve satisfactory improvements in the long run, editors should foster fundamental changes in the way the publication of negative and non-significant results is handled.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e132192

Authors: Bor Luen Tang

Abstract: An exercise in AI driven publishing

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e131771

Authors: Olivier Pourret

Abstract:

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e119537

Authors: Gina Joubert

Abstract: Not applicable.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e113535

Authors: A.J. (Tom) van Loon

Abstract: Background: Scientists are confronted nowadays with a tsunami of requests by preda-tory journals to contribute.Objectives: To inform potential authors, readers, reviewers, and editors of scien-tific articles about the ever-growing flow of low-quality publications and their neg-ative consequences, based on the author’s personal experience and on scrutiny of more than 360 invitations, received over 4 months, from journals to contribute a manuscript.Methods: The requests to contribute a manuscript received by the author during 4 months were analysed for the characteristics of the journals and publishers issuing the invitations.Results: A total of 368 requests were received during 4 months (123 days), on average 3 per day, from a total of 216 journals. Of these, 164 (~76%) were no more than 10 years old, and 129 of the 162 journals (~80%) that sent an invitation to contribute have no editor-in-chief; for 12 journals (~7%), the starting year could not be ascertained. Many journals are not located where they claim to be (typically the UK or the United States) but rather in countries such as India and Singapore. Slightly more than half of 216 journals (~54%) deal with medical matters.Conclusions: Predatory journals pose a severe threat to the quality of scientific infor-mation, which is why attempts should be made to stop them. A proposal to prepare an indisputable alternative for Beall’s List of potentially predatory journals is presented.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e99151

Authors: Kadri Kiran, Erdem Demiröz, Hacı Ali Güleç, Müge Atakan, Cem Uzun

Abstract: Background: Although Turkey publishes more than 3000 peer-reviewed scientific journals, fewer than 5% of them are covered by major indexing databases, and only 1 of the 10 scientific journals published by Trakya University (Turkey) is among those quality journals. In November 2017, Trakya University organized a workshop titled ‘Increasing the quality of academic journals at Trakya University’, the ultimate goal of which was to bring together all stakeholders in the process of academic publishing, to review the criteria of publishing quality, and to recommend measures to enhance the quality of academic journals published from Turkey. Objectives: To review the current status of academic journals published by Trakya University in terms of international publishing standards, to devise measures to enhance their quality, and also to help other journals do the same. Methods: Information was collected from the websites of 10 academic journals pub-lished by Trakya University in the fields of natural, medical, and social sciences to assess the extent to which each journal met a set of criteria defining quality academic publishing. These journals were then compared in terms of their success in meeting those criteria.Results: No single measure can improve the quality of all the ten journals published by Trakya University. Balkan Medical Journal topped the list in that it satisfied nearly all the criteria whereas the journals that met the fewest criteria were Trakya University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, Trakya University Journal of Faculty of Letters, and Journal of Balkan Libraries Union. Timeliness in ensuring ethical standards was the criterion most often met by the journals, but all 10 failed to meet the criteria related to data accessibility and good reporting guidelines. Of the 8 crite-ria related to fairness of the blind-review processes, all 10 met 6 but none met all 8. In terms of transparency and implementation of best practices, the highest compliance was in terms of the criteria related to the name of the journal, its governing body, and archiving, but no journal made any effort to market itself, that is, to expand its circulation.Conclusions: The strengths and weaknesses of each journal with reference to the quality of academic publishing were highlighted. The method described in the paper can also be used for evaluating other journals.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e78084

Authors: Emma C. Leedham Elvidge

Abstract: Background: Despite decades of work to improve gender equality in science (and other science, technology, engineering, and maths fields), gender bias still exists and has been shown to impact the retention of women in academic scientific careers. Publication of peer-reviewed articles remains a key criterion for career progression and a common marker of success in academia. Any barriers to publication faced by women may therefore impact their retention and career progression.Objectives: To investigate gender differences within one potential barrier to publication, namely the time taken in peer review, by investigating the question: ‘Is the peer review process longer for papers with (assumed) women as first authors than those with (assumed) male first authors?’Methods: Gender differences in peer review time were analysed for 1100 peer-reviewed papers published between 2006 and 2016 and selected from 5 journals covering a range of physical science disciplines and publication styles.Results: In the physical sciences, male first-authored papers outnumbered female first-authored papers 2:1. However, the analysis showed no statistical difference in the time taken for peer review between the two sets of papers.Conclusion: The time taken to peer review a paper is not linked to the gender of the paper’s first author. However, the large discrepancy in the number of papers with men as first authors compared to that with women as first authors could be a contributing factor to the attrition of women from the academic career ladder (the so-called ‘leaky pipeline’).

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e90942

Authors: Nguyen Hoang Thien

Abstract: The risk of bias in academic publishing is present from the first stages of the publishing process when the author creates an account and submits the manuscript, which becomes subject to the rights and power of journal editors. The author’s disclosure of certain personal information risks exposing him/her to biases for or against certain groups of authors. To reduce these potential biases, reviewers and editors involved in the assessment of author works should be prevented from accessing authors’ information until the final decision regarding publication has been made. Some information, such as authors’ ORCID details, can be requested after the article is accepted for publication. Standardizing appeal procedures and establishing protocols for handling author appeals is a necessary step in the effort to reduce publication bias. Regulations for the cover letter to editor should also be put in place to ensure that authors’ personal information is not disclosed, either explicitly or implicitly.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e90552

Authors: Salim Moussa

Abstract: The question of should editors-in-chief (EICs) publish in their own journals has been hotly debated in academic spheres. Some authors have recommended that EICs should refrain from publishing articles in their own journals. They advocate for a ‘publish elsewhere’ solution. For EICs and journals, a ‘publish elsewhere’ solution is unjust, unfair, inadequate, and counterproductive. For manuscripts (co) authored by EICs, an alternative solution is to use an open peer review procedure in which reviewers’ comments are made public alongside EICs/authors’ responses. An open peer review procedure should make the submission and acceptance dates, the number of revision rounds that EICs’ articles went through, and the identities of handling editors available to readers and the general public.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e89445

Authors: Kate Wilson

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e86910

Authors: Heather Van Epps, Olaya Astudillo, Yaiza Del Pozo Martin, Joan Marsh

Abstract: Understanding sex and gender differences is fundamental to rigorous and inclusive research, whether studying disease pathophysiology, sociodemographic determinants of health, or the benefits and harms of medical or social interventions. The inclusion of gender-diverse study populations has improved, but the reporting of sex and gender variables in research is still incomplete. The Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines, published in 2016, have been widely endorsed, but few scientific journals and organizations have incorporated them into formal editorial guidance and publication policies. To facilitate monitoring of and adherence to the SAGER guidelines in Lancet journals, we carried out an informal pilot study and developed a checklist to enable rapid editorial checks, promote uptake of the guidelines by other editors and journals, and raise awareness among peer reviewers and authors. By using this checklist as part of manuscript assessment and peer-review processes, journal editors can support best reporting practices when considering sex and gender as variables, improving the generalizability of the research they publish.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e91290

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e76284

Authors: Jocalyn Clark, Reshma Jagsi

Abstract: To meet the needs of their wide-ranging audiences, journals and editors must publish science that reflects the diversity of the communities they serve. And yet we collectively neglect the importance of optimizing the diversity of peer reviewers. This viewpoint explores the vital economy and identity of peer reviewers, and how these can help improve diversity in peer review. Economy, because this form of labour props up a publishing system, doling out the main form of currency within academia, and identity, because what peer reviewers contribute extends beyond their disciplinary expertise to their sense of self and what they represent: the backgrounds, values, and views they bring to the work of reviewing scientific papers.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e72187

Authors: Joseph El Khoury, Riwa Kanj, Lynn Adam, Rama Kanj, Abdul Jalil Hajaig, Firas Haddad, Rita Christie El Helou

Abstract: Background: Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have been consistently under-represented in the pool of contributors to academic journals on health. For the past two decades, prominent voices within the psychiatric profession have called for better representation of LMICs in the interest of advancing the understanding of mental health globally and benefiting health systems in these countries.Objective: To investigate the absolute and relative representation of authors affiliated to institutes from LMICs in the most influential journals on mental health in 2019.Method: Thirty top-ranking journals on mental health based on Scimago Journal Rank were selected, and all papers other than correspondence and letters to the editor published in those journals in 2019 were examined to extract the country of affiliation of each of their authors and their position (corresponding author, first author, second author).Results: Of the 4022 articles examined, 3720 articles (92.5%) were written exclusively by authors from high-income countries (HICs); 302 (7.5%) featured one or more authors from a LMIC along with those from HICs; 91 (2.2%) featured authors only from one LMIC; and only 3 (0.07%) featured authors from more than one LMICs but without any co-author from a HIC. The ratio of articles by contributors from LMICs to all the articles published in 2019 in a given journal ranged from 0% to 19%. Of 1855 individual contributors from 45 LMICs, 1050 (56%) were from China.Conclusion: Despite the growth of the global health movement and frequent calls for academic inclusivity, LMICs were significantly under-represented among the authors of papers published in top-ranking journals on mental health in 2019.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e62836

Authors: Maryam Talei, Farhad Handjani, Behrooz Astaneh, Mehrdad Askarian, Peyman Jafari

Abstract: Background: Peer review is a necessary but costly and time-consuming process to identify good-quality and methodologically sound articles and improve them before publication. Finding good peer reviewers is often difficult.Objective: To identify the incentives that make Iranian biomedical researchers accept invitations to be a peer reviewer and factors that affect these incentives.Methods: Twelve reviewers selected at random from the reviewers pool of each of 26 biomedical journals published from Fars province, Iran, were surveyed using a questionnaire that we had developed and tested in a pilot study of 30 reviewers (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.779). The data included the reviewers’ demographics, history of their reviews, and choice of 11 reasons each for accepting or declining the invitation to review.Results: A total of 233 reviewers completed the questionnaire. The most important reasons for accepting the invitation to review were the journal’s practice to publish the names of the reviewers alongside the article they had reviewed, acknowledgement by the journals by publishing the names of reviewers once a year, free access to journals’ content, and lower publication charges as authors. The most common reasons to decline the invitation were lack of time, busy schedules, and lack of sufficient incentive to review.Conclusion: Acknowledgement by the journal, offering to publish the names of reviewers alongside the articles they had reviewed, and monetary rewards will be effective incentives for biomedical researchers in Iran to serve as peer reviewers.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e51999

Authors: Evgueniya A Balyakina, Ludmila A Kriventsova

Abstract: Background: Peer review remains the only way of filtering and improving research. However, there are few studies of peer review based on the contents of review reports, because access to these reports is limited.Objectives: To measure the rejection rate and to investigate the reasons for rejection after peer-review in a specialized scientific journal. Methods: We considered the manuscripts submitted to a Russian journal, namely ‘Economy of Region’ (Rus Экономика региона), from 2016 to 2018, and analysed the double-blind review reports related to rejected submissions in qualitative and quantitative terms including descriptive statistics.Results: Of the 1653 submissions from 2016 to 2018, 324 (20%) were published, giving an average rejection rate of 80%. Content analysis of reviewer reports showed five categories of shortcomings in the manuscripts: breaches of publication ethics, mismatch with the journal’s research area, weak research reporting (a major group, which accounted for 66%of the total); lack of novelty, and design errors. We identified two major problems in the peer-review process that require editorial correction: in 36% of the cases, the authors did not send the revised version of the manuscript to the journal after receiving editorial comments and in 30% of the cases, the reviewers made contradictory recommendations.Conclusions: To obtain a more balanced evaluation from experts and to avoid paper losses the editorial team should revise the journal’s instructions to authors, its guide to reviewers, and the form of the reviewer’s report by indicating the weightings assigned to the different criteria and by describing in detail the criteria for a good paper.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e59855

Authors: Denys Wheatley

Abstract: A brief discussion is presented of the use of "ize" rather than "ise" in most current day journals. The need for editors and authors to be consistent in their spelling remains an issue.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e60203

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva, Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh

Abstract: Background: To examine the errata and retractions in total published output of Hungarian research and academia relative to that in 34 other European countries.Objective: To analyse the number of errata and retractions related to papers published by authors with Hungarian affiliations compared to those by authors with affiliations in the 34 other countries.Methods: Errata and retractions retrieved from three databases, namely Retraction Watch, Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus, were counted and sorted by country.Results: Scopus featured 7 retractions linked to Hungarian affiliations and WoS featured 10. Retraction Watch featured 26 such retractions, placing Hungary in 23rd position among the 35 countries arranged in descending order of the number of retractions. Of the 26 retractions from Hungary, 5 were in Elsevier journals and another 5 in Springer Nature; also, 8 of the 26 were associated with the University of Debrecen. When ranked for the number of errata notices for every 1000 published papers, Hungary was ranked 29th in WoS (2.54 notices per 1000 papers) and 26th in Scopus (2.3 notices per 1000 papers).Conclusions: The low numbers of Hungarian affiliations suggest that either research ethics are more stringently observed in Hungary or that publications from Hungarian research institutes, including papers in Hungarian – many Hungarian journals are indexed neither in WoS nor in Scopus – have not been scrutinized adequately through post-publication peer review.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e56541

Authors: Quan-Hoang Vuong, Manh-Toan Ho

Abstract: The indirect costs of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically extended work absenteeism and possible loss of productivity, are discussed focusing on the research community and its publishing. We suggest that the community should learn strategic and innovative decision-making as well as crisis management from business management to think ahead, especially about working effectively and being productive in times of crisis. The main challenges are:1) communicating scientific and credible information about the pandemic,2) focusing on being productive to provide some certainty, and3) adopting a new mindset and being open to unexpected opportunities.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e52497

Authors: Jean Iwaz

Abstract: Unfortunately, articles submitted to journals are rejected more frequently than is desirable. Journals themselves estimate that more than 60% of submitted articles are rejected without review (for top journals, the figure may even be 80%). Thus, whatever an article’s content or quality, an outright rejection should be expected right from the time of submission, and a reaction strategy defined beforehand. Each rejection should be carefully examined and fully understood before attempting any response. Here are some hints for beginners—or for edgy authors.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e51839

Authors: Jon Tennant

Abstract: Commercial publishing houses continue to make unbounded profits while exploiting the free labour of researchers through peer review. If publishers are to be compensated financially for the value that they add within a capitalist system, then so should all others who add value, including reviewers. I propose that peer review should be included as a professional service by research institutes in their contracts with commercial publishers. This would help to recognize the value of peer review, and begin to shape it into a functional form of quality control.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e53890

Authors: Senthil Kumar, Shahryar Sorooshian

Abstract: This is a short letter on how the peer review process of many journals is being abused by some sham authors. While it would be difficult for the journals to identify and eliminate manuscripts that are not submitted with a sincere intention to publish, the universities and learning institutions should develop code of ethics to prevent their staff from abusing the journal review process. Imposing submission fee would also act as a deterrent against unscrupulous submissions.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e53230

Authors: Ksenija Bazdaric, Pippa Smart

Abstract: The world has changed in the past few months in a way most of us could not imagine. The words “novel corona virus’’ (SARS-CoV-2), “COVID-19’’, “prevention”, “flattening the curve’’ and “hand washing’’ have become constant references within the daily news reports of mortality rates, the lack of equipment and possible therapies. The novel corona virus (SARS-CoV-2), which was first identified in the Chinese province of Hubei, has led to a pandemic and the whole scientific community, both in the public and privately-financed sector, is searching for an effective therapy as well as for a vaccine. All scientists (clinicians, epidemiologists, virologists, and public health experts) are under great pressure to give advice on matters where there is still no evidence.We are used to reading fake news and non-filtered information in the media, but are we ready for similar occurrences in science journals?

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e50566

Authors: Ksenija Bazdaric

Abstract: I am excited to announce that with this volume European Science Editing (ESE) has shifted from the print to a fully digital open access version. The journal underwent several changes last year. First of all, our publisher, the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) was generously offered – and accepted – a new ARPHA submission system (powered by PenSoft). Together with the EASE president Pippa Smart and EASE Council, we decided to transform ESE into a fully open access online journal. After several months of planning and re-thinking our strategy, a small working group (some members of the EASE Council and of ESE’s associate editors) prepared a proposal, the main idea of which was to divide the journal in two overlapping publications: European Science Editing and EASE Digest. The former will continue to publish original articles, reviews (formerly “essays”), viewpoints, and correspondence using the fully open access ARPHA submission system (flow publishing) but will drop the other sections, namely News notes, The editor’s bookshelf, This site I like, and EASE Forum Digest). These sections, which our readers consider particularly valuable, will now be published in EASE Digest with a few selected articles from ESE. The Digest will be available to EASE members only. As the proposal was accepted by the EASE Council in September 2019, the journal’s transformation is already under way. I wish to thank Silvia Maina (This site I like), Fiona Murphy (Book reviews), Elise Langdon-Neuner (EASE-Forum Digest), Anna Maria Rossi (The Editor’s bookshelf), and James Hartley and Denys Wheatley (members of the International Advisory Board) for the great work they have done and for their cooperation.

HTML

XML

PDF