We wish to thank 194 colleagues for their reviewing work, which was of tremendous help in contributing the success Isogloss 2022. You can find list all reviewers here.

Against the Resilience of Rejected Manuscripts Sir, In a recent Editorial, Cronin (2012) brought to light the topic on the fate of the rejected manuscripts. Indeed, thousands of papers are rejected and resubmitted to other journals with the hope of getting, eventually, published. Although the peer review was originally conceived to filter 'good science' from 'bad science', its shortcomings have...

Abstract Broader impact of scientific research beyond academia has become increasingly important in evaluation. To evaluate broader proposals, some funding agencies compose mixed panels that include peer experts and non-academic stakeholders. Whether how reviewers bring any difference to panel discussions been understudied. We analysed 164 review reports (2014–6) from the Investigators Programm...

Each Local Research Ethics Committee (LREC) is expected to produce an annual report for its establishing authority. Reports from 145 LRECs were examined with regard to (a) whether the committees were working within the terms of the most recent guidelines from the Department of Health and (b) observations on the role of LRECs with particular reference to accountability. Most LRECs had produced a...

The journal impact factor is not comparable among fields of science and social science because of systematic differences in publication and citation behaviour across disciplines. In this work, a source normalization of the journal impact factor is proposed. We use the aggregate impact factor of the citing journals as a measure of the citation potential in the journal topic, and we employ this c...