Science reviewer что это
Сервис по продвижению сайтов в интернете
Анализ, описание, отзывы sciencereviewer.ru, снимки экрана, обзор сайта sciencereviewer.ru, а так же анализ на наличие возможности его продвижения методом регистрации в различных справочниках, каталогах, сервисах, методом распространения информации по интернету.
Science Reviwer — Cистема рецензирования научных материалов
sciencereviewer.ru
Адрес сайта: sciencereviewer.ru
Возможный Alias: www.sciencereviewer.ru
Вероятно читается как: «скиенцеревиевер ру»
Описание: Не определено
Найденные ключевые фразы: Не определено
Конкурентов в поиске: Примерно 2149
Показатели сайта: На данный момент сайт sciencereviewer.ru имеет низкие показатели и низкую посещаемость. Сайт сложно находить соискателям в поиске Яндекса и Гугла. Вероятность того, что сайт в данный момент не продвигается ни одним из известных способов 85%
— Яндекс ИКС
— PR-CY RANK
— ТРАСТ
Наличие H1 тегов: Science Reviwer; Главная страница
Наличие H2 тегов: Cистема рецензирования научных материалов
Наличие H3 тегов: Как это работает для рецензента?; Как это работает для редакций-партнеров?; Рецензентам
Наличие H4 тегов: Не определено
Наличие H5 тегов: Не определено
Количество внутренних ссылок: 11
Количество исходящих (внешних) ссылок: 2
Анкоры текстовых ссылок: Science Reviwer; Главная; Рецензентам; СТАТЬ РЕЦЕНЗЕНТОМ; Виды материалов; Условия сотрудничества; Оплата и вывод средств; VolThemes; WordPress
Картинок/изображений на главной (всего): 0
Описания картинок: Не определено
Наличие вирусов: Не найдено (OK)
Наличие вредоносного кода: Не найдено (OK)
Наличие в списке запрещённых: Нет, всё в порядке (OK)
Размер главной страницы (html кода): 15524 Байт (OK)
Скорость открытия главной страницы (сек.): 1.953 (OK)
IP адрес сайта: 37.140.192.71 (server47.hosting.reg.ru)
NS сервера: ns1.hosting.reg.ru, ns2.hosting.reg.ru
Код ответа сервера: 200 (OK)
Наличие robots.txt: Robots.txt не используется
Эта страница просмотрена: 1182 раз с момента последнего анализа
Тех.оценка: 3.5 из 5
Дата последнего анализа: 24.05.2021г. в 14:35
Результат анализа и ожидаемый эффект:
Возможность продвижения: Да
Найденные проблемы с сайтом: Нет
Ожидаемый прирост ИКС показателя: Плюс 20-60 пунктов к текущему показателю.
Повышение позиций в поиске Яндекса: Да (вероятность 100%, эффективность 93%)
Повышение позиций в поиске Гугла: Да (вероятность 100%, эффективность 82%)
Получение новых ключевых фраз в поиске: Да (от 3 до 7 новых ключевых фраз)
Ожидаемое повышение посещаемости: Повышение в 4-8 раз, не менее чем на 150 человек в сутки, не более чем на 550 человек в сутки.
Информацию об услуге Вы можете получить тут, а с примерами приблизительного эффекта можно ознакомится тут.
Отзывы о сайте sciencereviewer.ru:
По вопросам продвижения и рекламы обращайтесь на контакты:
Стоимость услуги: 1200р.
Задействовано сайтов: 4468шт.
15.11.2021: В базу добавлено ещё 37 новых сайтов. Теперь мы можем разместить Вашу информацию ровно на 4468 сайтах!
13.10.2021: Сегодня мы произвели очередное обновление базы сайтов. В базу добавлено 42 новых сайта.
08.08.2021: Сегодня мы добавили в нашу базу 69 новых сайта. Все заказы за последние 3 недели будут автоматически опубликованы на этих новых сайтах в течение 3х дней совершенно бесплатно.
14.07.2021: В связи с переездом нашего сервиса на более мощный сервер, в ближайшие 2 дня мы будем принимать в работу Ваши заявки в опозданием в несколько часов. Почта в эти дни будет работать с перебоями, если долго не отвечаем, значит мы не получили Ваше письмо, в этом случае позвоните нам или напишите повторно. Переезд увеличит качество услуги и сократит скорость выполнение заявок как минимум в 2 раза.
17.06.2021: В базу добавлено 38 новых сайтов.
29.04.2021: В период майских праздников мы работаем но не круглосуточно, а с 10 до 17 часов (по МСК) ежедневно!
16.04.2021: Вчера Яндекс обновил ИКС, проверьте свой ИКС, он вырос почти у всех сайтов, что были в работе!
26.03.2021: В рабочую базу добавлено 56 новых сайта.
Сообщения в этом чате видны всем!
Для общения нужно авторизоваться в Л.К.
Science reviewer что это
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited.
Feature Papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. Feature Papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and undergo peer review prior to publication.
The Feature Paper can be either an original research article, a substantial novel research study that often involves several techniques or approaches, or a comprehensive review paper with concise and precise updates on the latest progress in the field that systematically reviews the most exciting advances in scientific literature. This type of paper provides an outlook on future directions of research or possible applications.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to authors, or important in this field. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Guidelines for Reviewers
“We are sincerely grateful to scholars who give their time to peer-review articles submitted to MDPI journals. Rigorous peer-review is the corner-stone of high quality academic publishing.”
— The MDPI editorial team.
Find a journal in your field
Benefits of MDPI Volunteer Reviewers
Peer review is an essential part in the publication process, ensuring that MDPI maintains high quality standards for its published papers. Reviewing is often an unseen and unrewarded task. We are striving to recognize the efforts of reviewers.
When reviewing for MDPI journals you:
Invitation to Join MDPI Volunteer Reviewer Database
If you are interested in reviewing articles for one or more of our journals, please register your contact details, including your ORCID identifier, institutional affiliation, a short CV, and 5-6 keywords in line with your expertise at the following page.
The managing editors of the selected journals will send you a notification once approved.
Prospective reviewers may also be interested in the Publons Academy, which provides training in how to conduct peer review.
Invitation to Review
Manuscripts submitted to MDPI journals are reviewed by at least two experts. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the external editor on whether a manuscript can be accepted, requires revisions or should be rejected.
We ask invited reviewers to:
Potential Conflicts of Interests
We ask reviewers to inform the journal editor if they hold a conflict of interests that may prejudice the review report, either in a positive or negative way. The editorial office will check as far as possible before invitation, however we appreciate the cooperation of reviewers in this matter. Reviewers who are invited to assess a manuscript they previously reviewed for another journal should not consider this as a conflict of interest in itself. In this case, reviewers should feel free to let us know if the manuscript has been improved or not compared to the previous version.
Confidentiality and Anonymity
Reviewers should keep the content of the manuscript, including the abstract, confidential. Reviewers must inform the Editorial Office if they would like a student or colleague to complete the review on their behalf.
MDPI journals operate single or double blind peer review. Reviewers should be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format.
MDPI journals offer authors the possibility to publish review reports with their paper and for reviewers to sign their open review reports, however this will only be done at publication with your express permission. If this is the case, it will be noted in the message inviting you to review. In all other cases, review reports are considered confidential and will only be disclosed with the explicit permission of the reviewer.
Note that, as the reviewer, you will have access to other reviewers’ reports via the online submission system after you have submitted your report.
Timely Review Reports
MDPI aims to provide an efficient and high quality publishing service to authors and to the scientific community. We ask reviewers to assist by providing review reports in a timely manner. Please contact the editorial office if you require an extension to the review deadline.
Peer-Review and Editorial Procedure
All manuscripts sent for publication in our journals are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts (this includes research and review articles, spontaneous submissions, and invited papers). The Managing Editor of the journal will perform an initial check of the manuscript’s suitability upon receipt. The Editorial Office will then organize the peer-review process performed by independent experts and collect at least two review reports per manuscript. We ask our authors for adequate revisions (with a second round of peer-review if necessary) before a final decision is made. The final decision is made by the academic editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief/Editorial Board Member of a journal or the Guest Editor of a Special Issue). Accepted articles are copy-edited and English-edited.
Rating the Manuscript
Please rate the following aspects of the manuscript:
Overall Recommendation
Please provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript as follows:
Accept in Present Form: The paper is accepted without any further changes.
Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given five days for minor revisions.
Reconsider after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. Usually, only one round of major revisions is allowed. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within ten days and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.
Reject: The article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, and the paper is rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.
Note that your recommendation is visible only to journal editors, not to the authors.
Review Report
We have listed some general instructions regarding the review report for your consideration. Please find these below.
To begin with, please consider the following guidelines:
Note that MDPI journals follow several standards and guidelines, including those from the ICMJE (medical journals), CONSORT (trial reporting), TOP (data transparency and openness), PRISMA (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) and ARRIVE (reporting of in vivo experiments). See the Publishing Standards and Guidelines page or contact the editorial office for more details. Reviewers that are familiar with the guidelines should report any concerns they have about their implementation.
For further guidance on writing a critical review, please refer to the following documents:
Review reports should contain the following:
General concept comments
Article: highlighting areas of weakness, the testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, missing controls, etc.
Review: commenting on the completeness of the review topic covered, the relevance of the review topic, the gap in knowledge identified, the appropriateness of references, etc.
These comments are focused on the scientific content of the manuscript and should be specific enough for the authors to be able to respond.
General questions to help guide your review report for research articles
General questions to help guide your review report for review articles
MDPI Review Reports Sharing
Reviewers may suggest that a manuscript may be more appropriate for publication in another MDPI journal. To save time and effort, authors would have the possibility to request the transfer of review reports to another MDPI journal. The full list of journals published by MDPI can be found here.
Guidelines for Reviewers for Registered Reports Papers
The review process for Registered Reports is divided into two stages. In Stage 1, reviewers assess study proposals before data is collected. In Stage 2, reviewers consider the full study, including results and interpretation.
When reviewing Stage 1 papers, note that no experimental data or results will be included. You only need to assess the method, including, for example:
Manuscripts that pass Stage 1 peer review maybe published immediately or after the successful completion of Stage 2 (at the authors’ discretion). Editorial decisions will not be based on the importance or novelty of the results.
For Stage 2 manuscripts, reviewers will be asked to appraise:
Guideline for Reviewers for Collaborative Peer Review
Collaborative Peer Review consists of two phases:
The role of a reviewer
Reviewing requires the investment of time and a certain skill set. Before you decide to accept a request to review, you might want to know more about the peer review process and how to conduct a review. You can also check out some of the free e-learning modules, tools and resources on Elsevier Researcher Academy.
What do reviewers do, and why?
Reviewers evaluate article submissions to journals based on the requirements of that journal, predefined criteria, and the quality, completeness and accuracy of the research presented. They provide feedback on the paper, suggest improvements and make a recommendation to the editor about whether to accept, reject or request changes to the article. The ultimate decision always rests with the editor but reviewers play a significant role in determining the outcome.
Reviewing is a time-intensive process – writing a review report can be almost as much work as writing a manuscript! – but it is very worthwhile for the reviewer as well as for the community.
Register your interest to be a reviewer
Typically, reviewers are invited to conduct a review by a journal editor. Editors usually select researchers that are experts in the same subject area as the paper. However, if you think you would be a good referee for a specific journal you can volunteer to review on our Reviewer Hub. On the “Volunteer to review” section of the Reviewer Hub, you can search for the journal(s) of your choosing and click on “Review for journal” to indicate your interest. Please note that you should first complete your reviewer profile.
Other ways to volunteer to review
Please be aware that the choice of whether or not to choose a particular referee for a paper is entirely at the discretion of the editor and Elsevier plays no part in this decision.
Recognizing reviewers
Elsevier acknowledges reviewers’ invaluable contribution to the progress of science. Elsevier’s reviewer recognition program aims to engage reviewers and reward them for the work they do. The program features several projects and experiments:
Reviewer Hub
The time, energy and expertise that referees contribute to validating the work of their peers is vital to the advancement of the academic community. Elsevier’s Reviewer Hub provides reviewers with a means of showcasing their efforts and receiving credit for their work.
The platform offers reviewers a personalized profile page, documenting their reviewing history and review certificates.
On the Reviewer Hub, reviewers can also claim their 30 days’ complimentary access to Scopus and ScienceDirect.
The platform offers discounts for several Elsevier services, including Elsevier’s WebShop, which offers professional English language editing, translation and illustration services for researchers preparing their articles, and the Elsevier Book Store.
Peer review reports as articles
The publishing peer review reports pilot publicly recognized reviewers’ intellectual contribution to accepted articles through the official publication of their reports. Review reports were attributed a separate DOI and published next to the accepted paper on Science Direct. If you are new to reviewing, you are urged to consult a few of these reports to get a feel for how to provide feedback yourself. Review reports are available for the following journals via the “supplementary material” section of articles published between 2015-2018. Participating journals include:
Reviewer feedback programme
We regularly survey reviewers to get a better understanding of their needs and how we’re doing when it comes to meeting them. Findings from the reviewer feedback programme help us to improve the reviewing experience. For example, 90% of reviewers said they would like to be able to see the final decision and other reviewers’ comments on a paper, so we added this functionality to the electronic submission system.
The reviewer feedback programme monitors Elsevier’s performance from the perspective of reviewers on Elsevier journals. We’ll ask you about various aspects of the reviewing system and other aspects of reviewing via an online survey. Areas of interaction and support are measured and reported regularly. Elsevier’s performance is benchmarked against that of other publishers.
If you have been asked to complete our reviewer feedback programme online survey, we strongly recommend you complete it to make sure your voice is heard.