scholarly journals Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. García ◽  
Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez ◽  
J. Fdez-Valdivia
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Hybrid Mode ◽  
Optimal Price ◽  
Benchmark Scenario ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Review Model

AbstractGiven how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay.

scholarly journals Criteria for Peer Reviewing the Original Articles Submitted to a Biomedical Journal: Intellectual Honesty is the Best Policy.

2004 ◽  
Vol 43 (152) ◽  
pp. 103-110
Author(s):  
Bishnu Hari Paudel
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Quality Review ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Biomedical Publication ◽  
Timely Review ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Biomedical Publications ◽  
Review Criteria

Peer review - a process of assessing the quality of manuscripts submitted to a journal – is an establishednorm in biomedical publications. It is viewed as an extension of scientific process. The peer-reviewed researcharticles are considered trustworthy because they are believed to be unbiased and independent. The processof reviewing is a privilege and prestige. It is highly responsible, intellectually honest, and difficult job.Being expert in certain area of biomedical science is a prerequisite for reviewers. Young peer reviewerstrained in epidemiology or statistics produce high-quality review. The International Congresses on PeerReview in Biomedical Publication have shown many unresolved issues related to preparation or handling ofmanuscripts by a journal. Therefore, it is vital to identify authentic peer reviewers to ensure qualitypublication, thus, a set of peer review criteria is proposed for peer reviewing original articles. It is useful inquantifying (scoring) the manuscript quality. The proposed scoring system yields three categories ofmanuscripts: the first category is considered acceptable for publication after minor modification by editorialboard and/or reviewers, the second – requires rewriting and resubmission, and the third – rejected. Thesecriteria are preliminary guidelines, and require timely review. They are expected to sensitise peer reviewers,editors, contributors, and readers to move towards greater honesty and responsibility while working withmanuscripts. In summary, if the criteria are used they will facilitate editorial management of manuscripts,render more justice to authors and biomedical science, and improve publication quality.Key Words: Biomedical publication, peer review, peer review criteria, scoring of manuscripts, categories of manuscripts, journal of Nepal Medical Association.

scholarly journals Evaluating, Improving, and Appreciating Peer Review at IJTMB

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Ann Blair Kennedy, LMT, BCTMB, DrPH
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Improve Efficiency ◽  
Peer Reviewers

  Peer review is a mainstay of scientific publishing and, while peer reviewers and scientists report satisfaction with the process, peer review has not been without criticism. Within this editorial, the peer review process at the IJTMB is defined and explained. Further, seven steps are identified by the editors as a way to improve efficiency of the peer review and publication process. Those seven steps are: 1) Ask authors to submit possible reviewers; 2) Ask reviewers to update profiles; 3) Ask reviewers to “refer a friend”; 4) Thank reviewers regularly; 5) Ask published authors to review for the Journal; 6) Reduce the length of time to accept peer review invitation; and 7) Reduce requested time to complete peer review. We believe these small requests and changes can have a big effect on the quality of reviews and speed in which manuscripts are published. This manuscript will present instructions for completing peer review profiles. Finally, we more formally recognize and thank peer reviewers from 2018–2020.

scholarly journals No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Serge P J M Horbach
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Scientific Enterprise ◽  
Considerable Impact ◽  
Editorial Decision ◽  
Evaluation Mechanism ◽  
Reader Comments ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Review Model ◽  
Editorial Decisions

Abstract The global Covid-19 pandemic has had considerable impact on the scientific enterprise, including scholarly publication and peer review practices. Several studies have assessed these impacts, showing among others that medical journals have strongly accelerated their review processes for Covid-19 related content. This has raised questions and concerns regarding the quality of the review process and the standards to which manuscripts are held for publication. To address these questions, this study sets out to assess qualitative differences in review reports and editorial decision letters for Covid-19 related, articles not related to Covid-19 published during the 2020 pandemic, and articles published before the pandemic. It employs the open peer review model at the British Medical Journal and eLife to study the content of review reports, editorial decisions, author responses, and open reader comments. It finds no clear differences between review processes of articles not related to Covid-19 published during or before the pandemic. However, it does find notable diversity between Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 related articles, including fewer requests for additional experiments, more cooperative comments, and different suggestions to address too strong claims. In general, the findings suggest that both reviewers and journal editors implicitly and explicitly use different quality criteria to assess Covid-19 related manuscripts, hence transforming science’s main evaluation mechanism for their underlying studies and potentially affecting their public dissemination.

scholarly journals Online Journals: the Path Towards Visibility and Quality

1970 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 175-184
Author(s):  
Julie Walker
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Online Journal ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Virtuous Cycle ◽  
Journal Visibility

Increasing the visibility of a journal is the key to increasing quality. The International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications works with journal editors in the global South to publish their journals online and to increase the efficiency of the peer review process. Editors are trained in using the Open Journals System software and in online journal management and strategy so they have the tools and knowledge needed to initiate a ‘virtuous cycle' in which visibility leads to an increase in the number and quality of submissions and in turn, increased citations and impact. In order to maximise this increase in quality, it must be supported by strong editorial office processes and management. This article describes some of the issues and strategies faced by the editors INASP works with, placing a particular emphasis on Nepal Journals Online. Key words: INASP; Open Journals System; Journals Online Projects; Nepal Journals Online; journal visibility; peer review DOI: 10.3126/dsaj.v3i0.2786 Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol.3 2009 175-184

scholarly journals Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035604
Author(s):  
Cecilia Superchi ◽  
Darko Hren ◽  
David Blanco ◽  
Roser Rius ◽  
Alessandro Recchioni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Version ◽  
Report Quality ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Definition Of

ObjectiveTo develop a tool to assess the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research.MethodsWe conducted an online survey intended for biomedical editors and authors. The survey aimed to (1) determine if participants endorse the proposed definition of peer-review report quality; (2) identify the most important items to include in the final version of the tool and (3) identify any missing items. Participants rated on a 5-point scale whether an item should be included in the tool and they were also invited to comment on the importance and wording of each item. Principal component analysis was performed to examine items redundancy and a general inductive approach was used for qualitative data analysis.ResultsA total of 446 biomedical editors and authors participated in the survey. Participants were mainly male (65.9%), middle-aged (mean=50.3, SD=13) and with PhD degrees (56.4%). The majority of participants (84%) agreed on the definition of peer-review report quality we proposed. The 20 initial items included in the survey questionnaire were generally highly rated with a mean score ranging from 3.38 (SD=1.13) to 4.60 (SD=0.69) (scale 1–5). Participants suggested 13 items that were not included in the initial list of items. A steering committee composed of five members with different expertise discussed the selection of items to include in the final version of the tool. The final checklist includes 14 items encompassed in five domains (Importance of the study, Robustness of the study methods, Interpretation and discussion of the study results, Reporting and transparency of the manuscript, Characteristics of peer reviewer’s comments).ConclusionAssessment of Review reports with a Checklist Available to eDItors and Authors tool could be used regularly by editors to evaluate the reviewers’ work, and also as an outcome when evaluating interventions to improve the peer-review process.

scholarly journals Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula CABEZAS Del FIERRO ◽  
Omar SABAJ MERUANE ◽  
Germán VARAS ESPINOZA ◽  
Valeria GONZÁLEZ HERRERA
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Average Length ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Review Time ◽  
Feedback Quality ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract The value of scientific knowledge is highly dependent on the quality of the process used to produce it, namely, the quality of the peer-review process. This process is a pivotal part of science as it works both to legitimize and improve the work of the scientific community. In this context, the present study investigated the relationship between review time, length, and feedback quality of review reports in the peer-review process of research articles. For this purpose, the review time of 313 referee reports from three Chilean international journals were recorded. Feedback quality was determined estimating the rate of direct requests by the total number of comments in each report. Number of words was used to describe the average length in the sample. Results showed that average time and length have little variation across review reports, irrespective of their quality. Low quality reports tended to take longer to reach the editor, so neither time nor length were related to feedback quality. This suggests that referees mostly describe, criticize, or praise the content of the article instead of making useful and direct comments to help authors improve their manuscripts.

scholarly journals Boom & Bust: Bird Stories for a Dry Country

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 70
Author(s):  
Stephen J. J. F. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Population Dynamics ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Extended Time ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Extended Time Period

As the subtitle says, this is a book of bird stories. The overall theme examines the population dynamics and evolution of some Australian inland birds in 12 separate essays, each by a different author or group of authors. It is apparent that the dates of preparation of these chapters cover an extended time period, one prepared by an author who died in 2001, and there is little attempt to integrate the stories. Each of the essays is well referenced and written by a respected authority on the bird, birds or topic that are the subject of the essay. In this way the book is authoritative, but it is also innovative, because it is clear that peer review has not been applied, or if applied then applied gently, because the authors have been allowed to speculate on the interpretations of the data they present. Modern journal editors and peer reviewers do their best to eliminate such speculation and yet it is from the presentation of such untested ideas that inquiry begins and science advances. The editors are to be applauded for taking this approach.

scholarly journals Peer Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Editorial Team ◽  
Deni Firmansyah
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Peer Reviewers

We would like to thank our peer reviewers for the precious contributions in providing clinical,scientific, and methodological expertise for JMH Volume 3 Number 2 August 2021. Weappreciate every thoughtful review of submitted manuscripts and for making importantcontributions to improve the scientific quality of articles published in JMH.We listed the names in alphabetical order.Abram Pratama, dr., Sp.PD.Adhi Kristianto Sugianli, dr., Sp.PK(K), M.Kes.Prof. Dr. Asep Sukohar, dr., M.Kes.Deta Tanuwidjaja, dr., Sp.KFR., AIFO-K.Dimas Erlangga Luftimas, dr., M.Kes., Sp.GK.Edwin Setiabudi, dr., Sp.PD-KKV, FINASIMFenny, dr., Sp.PK., M.Kes.Ginna Megawati, dr., M.Kes.Grace Puspasari, dr., M.GiziDr. Guswan Wiwaha, dr., MM.Dr. Hana Ratnawati, dr., M.Kes., PA(K)Juwita Ningsih, drg., M.Sc.Dr. Meilinah Hidayat, dr., M.Kes.Santun Bhekti Rahimah, dr., M.Kes.The, Fransiska Eltania, dr., M.Kes., A3M.Teresa Lucretia, dr., M.Kes.Prof. Wahyuni Lukita Atmadja, dr., Ph.D.Yenni Limyati, dr., S.Sn., Sp.KFR.Yuktiana Kharisma, dr., M.Kes.

scholarly journals Charity is welcome: The international benefits and pitfalls of peer Review

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Steel ◽  
Amy Price ◽  
Bhavna Seth ◽  
Rakesh Biswas ◽  
Pranab Chatterjee
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Traditional Method ◽  
Academic Work ◽  
Center Stage ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
The World ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Way

Peer review is the traditional method for validating academic work and this process is not without complications. Debates about the way peer reviewing is accomplished, the hazy but sensational world of retractions and the costs of publishing for authors are taking center stage. In no other field do people conceive and build the work, pay for it, inspect it, distribute it and buy it back again for their continued survival. Still after all this investment they can struggle for rights of access. In order to stem the tide of discontent, incentives for peer reviewers were introduced. The authors investigate the many faceted approaches to incentivize the process of peer review and consider what value they add, if any. The authors explore other avenues to benefit the largely anonymous and uncredited work of peer reviewers who remain the sentinels of the world of published evidence.

scholarly journals SUDANESE EXPERIENCE OF HERBAL FORMULAS USED DURING COVID-19 INFECTION

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
AzzaAbdelilah Ahmed Mohamed ◽  
Mai Abdalla Humaida ◽  
Ali Awadallah Saeed
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Off Label Use ◽  
Review System ◽  
Diabetes Therapy ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
Unique System ◽  
Review Reports

Objectives: Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is recent worldwide disaster which is considered by the WHO as Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). Method: A quick survey was done in Khartoum state for the commonly utilize herbs and the succeeded formulas, 652 people participated in this survey either they use these herbs for themselves or their relative use it during the symptoms of COVID-19. Results: A 652 people participated in the quick survey for the commonly utilized herbs & the succeeded formulas either they use these herbs for themselves or their relative use it during the symptoms of COVID-19. Other products used as additives include (honey,vinegar,sesame oil, olive oil and salt). Conclusion: Sudanese experience that various traditional herbs, usage and different route of administration can effectively alleviate primary symptoms e.g. fever, cough, fatigue and reduce probability of developing severe Conditions. Peer Review History: Received: 8 September 2020; Revised: 7 October; Accepted: 20 October, Available online: 15 November 2020 UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency. Received file Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 5.0/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 7.0/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Dr. Hebatalla Ibrahim Ahmed Abdel Hameed, Al-Azhar University, Faculty of Pharmacy (Girls), Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt [email protected] Dr. Mohamed Derbali, Faculty of Pharmacy, Monastir, Tunisia, [email protected] Comments of reviewer(s): Similar Articles: THE RISKS AND ADVANTAGES OF ANTI-DIABETES THERAPY IN THE POSITIVE COVID-19 PATIENT EUCALYPTUS ESSENTIAL OIL; AN OFF-LABEL USE TO PROTECT THE WORLD FROM COVID-19 PANDEMIC: REVIEW-BASED HYPOTHESES

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document