English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We examine selected aspects of peer review and suggest possible improvements.To this end, we analyse a dataset containing information about 300 paperssubmitted to the Biochemistry and Biotechnology section of the Journal of theSerbian Chemical Society. After separating the peer review process into stagesthat each review has to go through, we use a weighted directed graph todescribe it in a probabilistic manner and test the impact of some modificationsof the editorial policy on the efficiency of the whole process.

Review times in peer review: quantitative analysis of editorial workflows