Posted Mon, Mar, 05,2012
Libertas encourages readers to register to join the Clinical Medicine Insights: Blood Disorders peer review group. Being a volunteer peer reviewer is a great way to support Clinical Medicine Insights: Blood Disorders and assist your colleagues who have submitted manuscripts to the journal.
The peer review process has been designed to make this vital task as quick and well-organized as possible so reviewers’ time is used efficiently. This means that reviewers can focus on assessing papers rather than navigating obstructive web interfaces.
We survey our peer reviewers to maintain an understanding of their perspective on the peer review process. The feedback from peer reviewers has been overwhelmingly positive:
Dr Sharilyn Almodovar says: "I was pleased to serve as a peer reviewer for Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics. Its scope will hopefully blur some of the lines that still exist between clinical and basic science. The diligence of the editorial staff ensures the review process is fair, fast and very well-organized. I highly recommend potential authors and reviewers to submit to and review for this journal."
Dr Ajay K. Nooka says: "It was a pleasure and honor to be a peer reviewer for Libertas Academica. The review process is extremely streamlined and seems effortless; at the same time yielding high quality material. Great balance."
Posted in: Processing Speed and Quality
Thu 17 Apr, 2014Promise and Reality of Metabolic Networks
Thu 17 Apr, 2014Hypercoagulable State in Grave’s Disease Associated with Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome
Wed 16 Apr, 2014Featured Author –Dr Laszlo Tabar
I would like to say that this is the most author-friendly editing process I have experienced. The publishing process of this journal was a most pleasant and productive experience, and it was fast and convenient to me.
All authors are surveyed after their articles are published. Authors are asked to rate their experience in a variety of areas, and their responses help us to monitor our performance. Presented here are their responses in some key areas. No 'poor' or 'very poor' responses were received; these are represented in the 'other' category.See Our Results
Copyright © 2014 Libertas Academica Ltd (except open access articles and accompanying metadata and supplementary files.)