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 Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Editors of medical journals have important responsibilities and depend on peer reviewers to evaluate the quality of submitted manuscripts. However, invitations to undertake peer review are often declined, and in some cases the reviewer fails to provide a review in a reasonable timeframe.  Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings  surveyed recent reviewers to determine their motivations for undertaking a review and possible benefits associated with reviewing. Sixty-seven reviewers (12.4%) out of 540 responded to the survey request. Reviewer characteristics included long-standing involvement in research (50 reviewers in research ≥11 years) and prior publication (50 reviewers ≥6 articles). Many reviewers thought that reviewing articles represented a responsibility and provided an opportunity for them to contribute to scientific efforts and medical publications and to learn new information. Survey respondents suggested that recognition by the journal was an adequate benefit. This survey, like others, indicates that editors will continue to depend on a core set of reviewers who consider this activity both an opportunity and a responsibility.

Peer reviewer survey for Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings