All journals are subjected to a single-blind peer review process. The peer-review process is done by esteemed reviewers with an in-depth knowledge of the specialized discipline and purpose of the process. In order to encourage maximum participation from part of the reviewers, scientific credits will be provided based on the number of manuscripts handled and the exemplary timelines by the authors.
The tracking system will be used for peer-review of scientific journals to meet the criteria of an international editorial manager system. This provides greater flexibility and degree of transparency at each level, with respect to the authors, editors, and reviewers respectively. The standard peer review process is also essential from the perspective of editorial board members, who takes the responsibility in shaping the open access articles to meet the international standards of open access journals.
Peer-reviewed articles are assessed and critiqued by the scientists and experts in the same field after the article is distributed for review. An author is expected to incorporate the suggested changes prior to publication. This process enriches the content and improves the quality of the presentation considerably.
This is one of a set of measures used to assess the accuracy of a diagnostic test (see sensitivity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value). Specificity is the proportion of people without a disease who are correctly identified as not having that disease by the diagnostic test. For example, if a test has a specificity of 95%, this means that it correctly identified 95% of the people who did not have the disease, but that 5% of people without the disease were incorrectly diagnosed as having the disease (these people were ‘false positives’ on the test).
Anatomical penises may exist, but as pre-operative transgendered women also have anatomical penises, the penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a social construct isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity. Through detailed poststructuralist discursive criticism and the example of climate change, this paper will challenge the prevailing and damaging social trope that penises are best understood as the male sexual organ and reassign it a more fitting role as a type of masculine performance.