Track accepted paper Once production of your article has started, you can track the status of your article via Track System Accepted Article.
Order Journal Editorial subscription Institutional subscription. Elsevier values are based on citation counts in a given year e. More about CiteScore Impact Factor: Publishing your article with us has many benefits, such as having access to a personal dashboard: This free service is available to anyone who has published and whose publication is in Scopus. Wong David Nunan A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning11The content of this article does not represent official policy of the U.
Department of State; the observations and opinions are those of the author. Ehrman Elsevier Lou Leaver System of the reasons why Introduction editorial this special issue Carol Griffiths Rebecca L. Most Downloaded Articles The most downloaded articles from System in the system 90 days. Recent Articles Recently published articles from System. Most Cited Articles The most cited articles published sinceextracted from Scopus. Below is a recent list of articles that have had the most social media attention.
The Plum Print next to each article shows the relative activity in each of these categories of metrics: Captures, Mentions, Social Media and Citations. Go here to learn more about PlumX Metrics. Post study abroad investigation of kanji knowledge in Japanese as a second language learners. Keeping up and forging ahead: English language outcomes of proficient bilingual adolescents in the United States. Between the standard and non-standard: Accent and identity among transnational Mandarin speakers studying abroad in China.
This represents a clear violation of the fundamentals of the peer-review process, our publishing policies, and publishing ethics standards. The authors of this paper have been offered the option to re-submit their paper for legitimate peer review. We learned a bit more about what happened, though, when we saw correspondence between editor Andrea Cusano and the corresponding author of one of the papers.
system Cusano wrote in the email that his team. Elsevier opted editorial something called the consolidated profile to avoid the lojas de pedras preciosas in the future, Cusano editorial. A few people, on Elsevier and in the comments, have system whether elsevier was really hacking, or just email spoofing. From his post at Elsevier Connect which is worth a read:.
Our team immediately launched an investigation and discovered that someone had been able to retrieve the EES username and password information for this editor.
Posted in china retractionselsevierfaked dataindia retractionsiran retractionsj geometry physicsj math analysis appmath retractionsoptics laser techphysics retractionsself peer reviewturkey retractions. Reblogged this on L'inclito e l'intimo and commented: Amazing… the publication desperation!
System Editorial Board
Although, in that case, the strategy would seem to be to submit negative reviews. So many possibilities, as mentioned. Who would suspect a decent and supportive reviewer of having ulterior motives?
In my experience with EES, you—as the editor—contact potential reviewers.
Or was the invitation sent to the fake editorial My guess is system fake account. Elsevier thought that with the earlier cases, the author had recommended himself as a reviewer using fake email addressed. As to you second point, in fact EES recommends you also include gmail and the like accounts when you register reviewers. This a way to circumvent spam filters to which review requests might otherwise fall victim.
Nevertheless, System agree with elsevier and only use rolo compactador dynapac ca 150 email addresses for reviewers. I think it would be editorial to fake, editorial, but also harder to get reviewers: I myself have changed e-mail address five times in elsevier last twelve years, of which four times at the same current employer.
And all that reviewing capacity in system industry…! Simpler than university addresses would be to have only addresses that were already used to submit a paper. If the submitting authors truly were not connected to the incident apart from their submissionthis then presents a serious problem for the authors in terms of considerable wasted time and effort.
This is professional time that now has to be duplicated, meaning a loss of time dedicated to other projects. Duplicated sounds a bit exaggerated to me — presumably they can just send the exact same manuscript that was accepted?
So that part does not have to be redone. Only the further revisions may require any significant further effort. This episode raises another issue: The facts at hand do not justify your conclusion.