scholarly journals Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

eLife ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel G Hamilton ◽  
Hannah Fraser ◽  
Rink Hoekstra ◽  
Fiona Fidler

Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 editors of journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. We found that 49% of the journals surveyed checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, that 61% allowed authors to recommend both for and against specific reviewers, and that less than 6% used a form of open peer review. Most journals did not have an official policy on altering reports from reviewers, but 91% of editors identified at least one situation in which it was appropriate for an editor to alter a report. Editors were also asked for their views on five issues related to publication ethics. A majority expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their own journals, and replication studies. Our results provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role and transparency of peer review in scholarly publishing.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel George Hamilton ◽  
Hannah Fraser ◽  
Rink Hoekstra ◽  
Fiona Fidler

Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 journal editors of high-impact journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. Editors were asked for details about peer review policies and practices at their journals, as well as their views on five publication ethics issues. Key findings included: almost half of surveyed journals checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, adoption of “open” policies was uncommon and a fifth of editors reported that disagreement with a reviewer’s recommendation would be grounds for editing a report (with or without the reviewer’s permission). The majority of editors expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to raw data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their journals and replication studies. These results highlight differences in peer review policies across journals and provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role of peer review in scholarly publishing, and transparency in editorial and publishing policy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Wager ◽  
◽  
Sabine Kleinert

Abstract Background Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic. Methods These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication. Results The main recommendations are that research institutions should: develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers. Conclusions Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases.


Author(s):  
Geoffrey Boyd

At its core, academic knowledge production is predicated on Western notions of knowledge historically grounded in a Euro-American, White, male worldview. As a component of academic knowledge production, scholarly publishing shares the same basis of Whiteness. It excludes knowledge that doesn’t conform to White, Western notions of knowledge, forces conformity to (and therefore reinforcement of) a Western standard of writing/knowledge, and leads to a reverence of peer-reviewed literature as the only sound source of knowledge. As a tool of scholarly publishing and the editorial process, blind peer review, though perhaps well-intentioned, is fraught with problems, especially for BIPOC researchers and writers, because it fails in its intended purpose to drastically reduce or eliminate bias and racism in the peer review and editorial processes; shields peer reviewers and editors against accusations of bias, racism, or conflicts of interest; and robs BIPOC, and particularly Indigenous, writers and researchers from having the opportunity to develop relationships with those that are reviewing and publishing their work.


Author(s):  
Jadranka Stojanovski

>> See video of presentation (28 min.) The primary goal of scholarly communication is improving human knowledge and sharing is the key to achieve this goal: sharing ideas, sharing methodologies, sharing of results, sharing data, information and knowledge. Although the concept of sharing applies to all phases of scholarly communication, most often the only visible part is the final publication, with the journal article as a most common type. The traditional characteristics of the present journals allow only limited possibilities for sharing the knowledge. Basic functions, registration, dissemination, certification, and storage, are still present but they are no more effective in the network environment. Registration is too slow, there are various barriers to dissemination, certification system has many shortcomings, and used formats are not suitable for the long term preservation and storage. Although the journals today are digital and various powerful technologies are available, they are still focused on their unaltered printed versions. This presentation will discuss possible evolution of journal article to become more compliant with users' needs and to enable “the four R’s of openness” – reuse, redistribute, revise and remix (Hilton, Wiley, Stein, & Johnson, 2010).Several aspects of openness will be presented and discussed: open access, open data, open peer review, open authorship, and open formats. With digital technology which has become indispensable in the creation, collection, processing and storage of data in all scientific disciplines the way of conducting scientific research has changed and the concept of "data-driven science" has been introduced (Ware & Mabe, 2009). Sharing research data enhances the capabilities of reproducing the results, reuse maximizes the value of research, accelerating the advancement of science, ensuring transparency of scientific research, reducing the possibility of bias in the interpretation of results and increasing the credibility of published scientific knowledge. The open peer review can ensure full transparency of the entire process of assessment and help to solve many problems in the present scholarly publishing. Through the process of the open peer review each manuscript can be immediately accessible, reviewers can publicly demonstrate their expertise and could be rewarded, and readers can be encouraged to make comments and views and to become active part of the scholarly communication process. The trend to to describe the author's contribution is also present, which will certainly lead to a reduced number of “ghost”, "guest" and "honorary" authors, and will help to establish better standards for author’s identification.Various web technologies can be used also for the semantic enhancement of the article. One of the most important aspects of semantic publication is the inclusion of the research data, to make them available to the user as an active data that can be manipulated. It is possible to integrate data from external sources, or to merge the data from different resources (data fusion) (Shotton, 2012), so the reader can gain further understanding of the presented data. Additional options provide merging data from different articles, with the addition of the component of time. Other semantic enhancement can include enriched bibliography, interactive graphical presentations, hyperlinks to external resources, tagged text, etc.Instead of mostly static content, journals can offer readers dynamic content that includes multimedia, "living mathematics", “executable articles”, etc. Videos highlighting critical points in the research process, 3D representations of chemical compounds or art works, audio clips with the author's reflections and interviews, and animated simulations or models of ocean currents, tides, temperature and salinity structure, can became soon common part of every research article. The diversity of content and media, operating systems (GNU / Linux, Apple Mac OSX, Microsoft Windows), and software tools that are available to researchers, suggests the usage of the appropriate open formats. Different formats have their advantages and disadvantages and it would be necessary to make multiple formats available, some of which are suitable for "human" reading (including printing on paper), and some for machine reading that can be used by computers without human intervention. Characteristics and possibilities of several formats will be discussed, including XML as the most recommended format, which can enable granulate document structure as well as deliver semantics to the human reader or to the computer.Literature:Hilton, J. I., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The Four R’s of Openness and ALMS Analysis: Frameworks for Open Educational Resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 25(1), 37–44. doi:10.1080/02680510903482132Shotton, D. (2012). The Five Stars of Online Journal Articles - a Framework for Article Evaluation. D-Lib Magazine, 18(1/2), 1–16. doi:10.1045/january2012-shottonWare, M., & Mabe, M. (2009). The stm report (p. 68).


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles R. Ebersole ◽  
Maya B. Mathur ◽  
Erica Baranski ◽  
Diane-Jo Bart-Plange ◽  
Nicholas R. Buttrick ◽  
...  

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect ( p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δ r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols ( r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols ( r = .04) and the original RP:P replications ( r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies ( r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19–.50).


2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 108
Author(s):  
Leslie Bussert

Objective – To identify and examine the factors of library publishing services that facilitate scholarly communication. Design – Analysis of library publishing service programs. Setting – North American research libraries. Subjects – Eight research libraries selected from the signatories for the Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE) Cornell University Library’s Center for Innovative Publishing; Dartmouth College Library’s Digital Publishing Program and Scholars Portal Project; MIT Libraries’ Office of Scholarly Publishing and Licensing; Columbia University Libraries’ Center for Digital Research and Scholarship; University of Michigan Library’s Scholarly Publishing Office; Duke University Library’s Office of Scholarly Communications; University of Calgary Libraries and Cultural Resources’ Centre for Scholarly Communication; and Simon Fraser University Library’s Scholarly Publishing. Methods – The authors used Roosendaal and Geurt’s (1997) four functions of scholarly communication to analyze and categorize library publishing services provided by libraries included in the study. The four functions of scholarly communication include registration, certification, awareness, and archiving. Main Results – Analysis of the registration functions provided by library publishing services in this study revealed three types of facilitating factors: intellectual property, licensing, and publishing. These include services such as repositories for digital scholarly work and research, ISBN/ISSN registration, and digital publishing. Analysis of archiving functions demonstrated that most programs in the study focus on repository-related services in support of digital content preservation of papers, datasets, technical reports, etc. Analysis of certification functions provided by these services exposed a focus on expert review and research support. These include services like professional assessment of information sources, consultation on appropriate literature and information-seeking tools, and writing or copyright advisory services. Analysis of awareness function showed search aids and knowledge-sharing platforms to be the main facilitating factors. These include services like metadata application, schema, and standards or scholarly portals enabling knowledge-sharing among scholars. Conclusion – This study identified several services offered by these library publishing programs which can be categorized as facilitators under Roosendaal and Geurt’s (1997) four functions of scholarly communication. The majority of the libraries in the study treated library publishing services as part of broader scholarly communication units or initiatives. Digital publishing (registration function) was offered by all programs analyzed in the study, while traditional peer-review services (certification function) were not. Widely adopted among programs in the study were the use of social networking tools (awareness function) and self-publishing (archiving function). The authors recommend developing services that facilitate peer review and assert the need to provide a knowledge-sharing mechanism within the academic community that facilitates the scholarly communication process.


2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-334
Author(s):  
Wendy Lipworth

Objective: The manuscript review process is a central part of medicine, but has become increasingly the subject of criticism. A frequent claim is that the process is insufficiently objective and that it is inconsistent in its capacity to assess manuscript quality. Implicit in this is the expectation that manuscript review is, or should be, a ‘scientific’ process. In this paper I examine and critique this ‘scientific imperative’. Conclusions: Manuscript review, like clinical medicine and (ironically) like science itself, is not and cannot be a ‘scientific’ process, and this needs to be taken into account both by those carrying out reviews and those who wish to evaluate and improve the manuscript review process.


F1000Research ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Ford

Open peer review, peer review where authors' and reviewers' identities are disclosed to one another, is a growing trend in scholarly publishing. Through observation of four journals in STEM disciplines,PLoS One,Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics,PeerJ, andF1000Research, an observational overview is conducted. The overview relies on defined characteristics of open peer review. Results show that despite differing open peer review implementations, each journal retains editorial involvement in scholarly publishing. Further, the analysis shows that only one of these implementations is fully transparent in its peer review and decision making process. Finally, the overview contends that journals should clearly outline peer review and editorial processes in order to allow for open peer review to be better understood and adopted by authors, reviewers, editors, and readers of science communications.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lin Zhang ◽  
Yuanyuan Shang ◽  
Ying HUANG ◽  
Gunnar Sivertsen

Peer review of scientific manuscripts before publication is essential in scholarly publishing, and most active researchers hold relationships with a number of journals as both an author and a reviewer. There have been several studies focusing on gender balance in academic research and authorship, but fewer studies on our role as reviewers. Publons is a commercial website run by Clarivate Analytics that allows researchers to track and verify their peer review activities and be recognized for it. The platform features over 2 million researchers and 6.9 million reviews for more than 5,000 partnered journals, listing the most active reviewers as “top reviewers”. Our study focuses on gender representation in this ‘top reviewer’ group while also looking at the countries, regions and research fields they represent, as well as the relationship between their roles as authors and reviewers. The results show that male reviewers dominate in almost all countries, regions, and research fields. Male reviewers generally contribute to review work more frequently than females; however, female reviewers write longer reviews. The correlations between reviewing activity and research activity are generally weak overall and within specific research fields. This may reflect that active reviewers are not necessarily the most productive researchers in their fields. What clearly emerges from our results is the need for more concern over gender representation in the quality assurance and gatekeeping functions of scholarly publishing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document