scholarly journals Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Klebel ◽  
Stefan Reichmann ◽  
Jessica Polka ◽  
Gary McDowell ◽  
Naomi Penfold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Clear Information

AbstractClear and findable publishing policies are important for authors to choose appropriate journals for publication. We investigated the clarity of policies of 171 major academic journals across disciplines regarding peer review and preprinting. 31.6% of journals surveyed do not provide information on the type of peer review they use. Information on whether preprints can be posted or not is unclear in 39.2% of journals. 58.5% of journals offer no clear information on whether reviewer identities are revealed to authors. Around 75% of journals have no clear policy on co-reviewing, citation of preprints, and publication of reviewer identities. Information regarding practices of Open Peer Review is even more scarce, with <20% of journals providing clear information. Having found a lack of clear information, we conclude by examining the implications this has for researchers (especially early career) and the spread of open research practices.

scholarly journals Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?

Publications ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel Knöchelmann
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Communication Practices ◽  
Do So

Open science refers to both the practices and norms of more open and transparent communication and research in scientific disciplines and the discourse on these practices and norms. There is no such discourse dedicated to the humanities. Though the humanities appear to be less coherent as a cluster of scholarship than the sciences are, they do share unique characteristics which lead to distinct scholarly communication and research practices. A discourse on making these practices more open and transparent needs to take account of these characteristics. The prevalent scientific perspective in the discourse on more open practices does not do so, which confirms that the discourse’s name, open science, indeed excludes the humanities so that talking about open science in the humanities is incoherent. In this paper, I argue that there needs to be a dedicated discourse for more open research and communication practices in the humanities, one that integrates several elements currently fragmented into smaller, unconnected discourses (such as on open access, preprints, or peer review). I discuss three essential elements of open science—preprints, open peer review practices, and liberal open licences—in the realm of the humanities to demonstrate why a dedicated open humanities discourse is required.

Looking inside the world of peer review: Implications for graduate student writers

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Paltridge
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Graduate Student ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Student Writers ◽  
Academic Appointment ◽  
The World ◽  
The Future ◽  
Research Students

Getting published in academic journals is increasingly important for research students in terms of gaining employment when they complete their studies and, in the future, for tenure and promotion applications once they have obtained an academic appointment. In this paper, I discuss some of the challenges that student (and early career) writers face when submitting articles to academic journals and, in particular, how they might better understand and respond to the reports they receive on their work.

scholarly journals Results of the 2019 Wiley Open Research Survey

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Wood ◽  
Elizabeth Moylan ◽  
Natasha White
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Research Survey ◽  
Open Collaboration ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Publication Data ◽  
Do So

Wiley has published the results of its Open Research Survey 2019. Earlier this year, over 2,600 researchers worldwide shared their thoughts and experiences of open research practices including: open access publication, data sharing, open peer review and open collaboration. For each of these areas we’ll present what motivates researchers to adopt these practices and the ways in which they do so, looking at how this varies by geography, subject area and career level. We’ll also look at the reasons why researchers might not be adopting these practices.   

scholarly journals The Importance of Rigorous Methods in a Growing Research Field: Five Practices for ASMR Researchers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Hostler
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Code Sharing ◽  
Five Practices

A rigorous field of research is constructed on reproducible findings that allow researchers to confidently construct hypotheses and build theories from accessible literature. As a nascent area of research, the study of Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response (ASMR) has the opportunity to become such a field through the adoption of transparent and open research practices. In this paper I outline five such practices that can help achieve this aim: Preregistration, sharing data and code, sharing materials, posting preprints, and collaboration. Failing to adopt such principles could allow the proliferation of findings that are irreproducible and delay the progress of the field. Submitted to Meta-Psychology. Click here to follow the fully transparent editorial process of this submission. Participate in open peer review by commenting through hypothes.is directly on this preprint.

scholarly journals Open Research Data and Open Peer Review: Perceptions of a Medical and Health Sciences Community in Greece

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Eirini Delikoura ◽  
Dimitrios Kouis
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Proper Training ◽  
To Receive

Recently significant initiatives have been launched for the dissemination of Open Access as part of the Open Science movement. Nevertheless, two other major pillars of Open Science such as Open Research Data (ORD) and Open Peer Review (OPR) are still in an early stage of development among the communities of researchers and stakeholders. The present study sought to unveil the perceptions of a medical and health sciences community about these issues. Through the investigation of researchers` attitudes, valuable conclusions can be drawn, especially in the field of medicine and health sciences, where an explosive growth of scientific publishing exists. A quantitative survey was conducted based on a structured questionnaire, with 179 valid responses. The participants in the survey agreed with the Open Peer Review principles. However, they ignored basic terms like FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and appeared incentivized to permit the exploitation of their data. Regarding Open Peer Review (OPR), participants expressed their agreement, implying their support for a trustworthy evaluation system. Conclusively, researchers need to receive proper training for both Open Research Data principles and Open Peer Review processes which combined with a reformed evaluation system will enable them to take full advantage of the opportunities that arise from the new scholarly publishing and communication landscape.

scholarly journals Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Wager ◽  
◽  
Sabine Kleinert
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
List Type ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Published Research

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.

Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals

2016 ◽  
pp. 75-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily A. Largent ◽  
Richard T. Snodgrass
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Academic Journals

scholarly journals Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication and Scientific Publishing

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Bishnu Bahadur Khatri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

Peer review in scholarly communication and scientific publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In the growing interest of scholarly research and publication, this paper tries to discuss about peer review process and its different types to communicate the early career researchers and academics.This paper has used the published and unpublished documents for information collection. It reveals that peer review places the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of scientific publishing. It is the system used to assess the quality of scientific research before it is published. Therefore, it concludes that peer review is used to advancing and testing scientific knowledgeas a quality control mechanism forscientists, publishers and the public.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document