Zenefits gives you a single place to manage your payroll, benefits, HR, and compliance -- all online, all in one beautiful dashboard. No more paperwork. PlanSource is a multi-carrier benefits administration platform that supports out where to find everything, it is great having all of your information in one place. Reviews from All in 1 S.P.O.T. with TheraTalk employees about All in 1 S.P.O.T. with TheraTalk culture, salaries, benefits, work-life balance, management, job.
Benefits One the and all Reviews place for
Managers are lazy, expect the worker to do the job only. Horrible pay, no incentive to work harder, everyone's gets same raise every year.
The managers are the one getting appreciated while the bottom working hard. Very old time minded company. The supervisor are just very uneducated, unprofessional, and completely worthless.
Only people who writes good thing about this company are the ones who are probably forced to write it by their managers. The benefits are not that great as they make it sound. If you plan on getting job here, then at least ask for double the pay rate bcz they will make you work you work hard.
Apply only for manager post bcz they are not expected to do anything, just to walk around and wait for the shift to be over. Very fast paced and can be tiresome.
Working there was good in the beginning but policies are very strict in regards to cash handling. Must stand for whole shift. You are NOT allowed to have phone on you. If anyone needs to contact you it MUST be through the store phone. Demeaning place for work. So far this is the worst company Where I worked, They are mean and disrespectful With their employees!!!!
They keeping pay me under the minimum Wage even if the state raise it!!! Legacy Company that Refuses to Grow. The Citarella brand ages you 10 years. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must also ensure that there are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review process. When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental design, and the appropriateness of the methods used.
The reviewer also assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research. Additionally, reviewers identify any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect.
Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal.
If the paper is accepted, as per suggestion by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, where it is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review process is presented in Figure 1. Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, as well as by scientists with a more general knowledge base.
Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers. Reviewers can range from young and up-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Often, the young reviewers are the most responsive and deliver the best quality reviews, though this is not always the case.
On average, a reviewer will conduct approximately eight reviews per year, according to a study on peer review by the Publishing Research Consortium PRC 7. Journals will often have a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives.
They will also keep a rather large reviewer bank, so that reviewers do not get burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously. Referees are typically not paid to conduct peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees have to review at all.
Some feel an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, then they should review the work of their peers as well.
Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much as possible. Others review to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to do so.
Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to advance their own research as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are keen on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired as editors.
Some scientists see peer review as a chance to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the material. Peer reviewing can also be an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field 5.
One third of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to five papers per year, and an additional one third of respondents were happy to review up to ten. On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one paper 12 , however, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over , periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed After logging into the system using an institutional login eg.
The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The reviewer will then consider whether the research question is important and original, a process which may be aided by a literature scan of review articles. Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references.
The title must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the study. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive enough, and ensures that it is clear and concise.
The abstract is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the rest of the paper. This demonstrates that the abstract alone is often used to assess the value of an article.
The introduction of a scientific paper presents the research question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in order to identify why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background information on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.
The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation.
The methods section should be detailed enough that it can be used it to repeat the experiment Methods are written in the past tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or interpretation This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, as well as figures and tables in addition to the text.
The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient detail, and determines their credibility. Reviewers also confirm that the text is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant The peer reviewer will also make sure that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the data accurately.
The discussion section is where the data is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies The discussion describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future research The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation.
The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate interpretation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the study. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to author last name, or numbered according to the order in which they appear in the paper.
The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing. Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Figure 2. To increase the chance of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission.
The author must also be open to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes made in previous submissions. The peer review process is generally conducted in one of three ways: In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. Open peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review 2.
It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors 2. On the other hand, open peer review can also prevent reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in order to be polite 2. According to the Sense About Science survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value Single-blind peer review is by far the most common.
This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed 2. This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the author 2. The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their own data first 2. Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased against the author based on their country of origin or previous work 2.
This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, it can sometimes be easy for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing style, subject matter or self-citation, and thus, impart bias 2.
A study by Justice et al. There was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors However, a previous study conducted by McNutt et al. Although Justice et al.
Additionally, there were problems masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al.
In addition to open, single-blind and double-blind peer review, there are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review. As many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, engage in online discussions and post a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central have enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site Philica is another journal launched with this experimental form of peer review.
Another experimental form of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has also emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which allow scientists to conduct peer reviews on articles in the preprint media The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to see both the article and the reviews as the article is being developed Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism as the scientific community will already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in print Dynamic review also reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing.
As an active review reader, I appreciate having updated and recent reviews to read. I know others do as well. Your review may very well help a fellow traveller or more to make a good decision when it comes to choosing a hotel, attraction or restaurant. This one is self-explanatory. We don't pay to use the website or read reviews and forum posts provided by fellow TA members.
Writing reviews is a simple way of giving back to the community for the free access and unlimited benefits we have from their past efforts. There are a couple excellent articles on how Uber uses them to encourage drivers to drive more and to drive when it is not in their economic self interest to do so. This article made me more aware of how I respond the way TA would like me to, in part because of TA's use of nudges.
He insists that there are predictable and coherent associations that can be exploited by this sort of priming. If subjects are unaware of this unconscious influence, the freedom to resist it begins to look more theoretical than real.
The Silicon Valley executives clearly saw the commercial potential in these behavioral techniques, since they have now become integral to that sector. When Thaler and Sunstein last updated their nudges. Behavioral economics will increasingly be providing the behavioral insight that drives digital strategy. Thank you to all my fellow TA associates. The information and help I receive from other members is priceless and I honestly consider the time to write reviews as "paying it forward".
I agree with York Foodie that for me it is also a future reference as it refreshes my memory of what I really liked or disliked about a place because unless a place is really bad or truly exceptional the details sometimes elude me. Also what was good last year may not be so good this year. The place maybe under new ownership or management. If you depend on guidebooks they are generally already out of date by at least a year. I have been using TA as a tool to plan travels years before I got into reviewing myself, I really enjoy it and feel it the way you do.
I try to rely on the facts in order to offer pro-level reviews, information that I would love to find if I were to visit places, adding know-how from my professional year experience working in the hotel industry. My friends like to call me "Mr. Anyway, I am glad to be part of the community and find personal satisfaction as I collect helpful votes.
I like the phrase 'paying it forward' - that's the reason many do it and sharing any knowledge of places and transport on the forums. I've benefited so much from both in making my travel stress free and avoiding bad hotel choices.
The forums have given me information I couldn't have got from any other source and all in one go usually. So the time others have taken to ensure I have a good trip I like to pay forward.
There was a problem providing the content you requested
63 reviews from System One employees about Pay & Benefits. westernkentuckyvsfloridaintllive.us all work as a team. a place that I would go back if they were still in the USA. Find and compare Benefits Administration software. Free by BambooHR. ( reviews) ABM is a single point portal to manage all your benefit needs. A free inside look at company reviews and salaries posted anonymously by employees. A great place to work, a good team environment and great benefits ! .. Consolidating and moving all their offices to one building has caused a lot of .