scholarly journals Editors’ perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e020568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ketevan Glonti ◽  
Darko Hren
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Manuscript Review ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Communication Practices

IntroductionDespite dealing with scientific output and potentially having an impact on the quality of research published, the manuscript peer-review process itself has at times been criticised for being ‘unscientific’. Research indicates that there are social and subjective dimensions of the peer-review process that contribute to this perception, including how key stakeholders—namely authors, editors and peer reviewers—communicate. In particular, it has been suggested that the expected roles and tasks of stakeholders need to be more clearly defined and communicated if the manuscript review process is to be improved. Disentangling current communication practices, and outlining the specific roles and tasks of the main actors, might be a first step towards establishing the design of interventions that counterbalance social influences on the peer-review process.The purpose of this article is to present a methodological design for a qualitative study exploring the communication practices within the manuscript review process of biomedical journals from the journal editors’ point of view.Methods and analysisSemi-structured interviews will be carried out with editors of biomedical journals between October 2017 and February 2018. A heterogeneous sample of participants representing a wide range of biomedical journals will be sought through purposive maximum variation sampling, drawing from a professional network of contacts, publishers, conference participants and snowballing.Interviews will be thematically analysed following the method outlined by Braun and Clarke. The qualitative data analysis software NVivo V.11 will be used to aid data management and analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis research project was evaluated and approved by the University of Split, Medical School Ethics Committee (2181-198-03-04-17-0029) in May 2017. Findings will be disseminated through a publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations during conferences.

scholarly journals Journal editors’ perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e035600
Author(s):  
Ketevan Glonti ◽  
Isabelle Boutron ◽  
David Moher ◽  
Darko Hren
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
General Medicine ◽  
Personal Communication ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Communication Practices

ObjectiveTo generate an understanding of the communication practices that might influence the peer-review process in biomedical journals.MethodRecruitment was based on purposive maximum variation sampling. We conducted semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis method.Participants56 journal editors from general medicine (n=13) and specialty (n=43) biomedical journals. Most were editor-in-chiefs (n=39), men (n=40) and worked part time (n=50).ResultsOur analysis generated four themes (1) providing minimal guidance to peer reviewers—two subthemes described the way journal editors rationalised their behaviour: (a) peer reviewers should know without guidelines how to review and (b) detailed guidance and structure might have a negative effect; (2) communication strategies of engagement with peer reviewers—two opposing strategies that journal editors employed to handle peer reviewers: (a) use of direct and personal communication to motivate peer reviewers and (b) use of indirect communication to avoid conflict; (3) concerns about impact of review model on communication—maintenance of anonymity as a means of facilitating critical and unburdened communication and minimising biases and (4) different practices in the moderation of communication between authors and peer reviewers—some journal editors actively interjected themselves into the communication chain to guide authors through peer reviewers’ comments, others remained at a distance, leaving it to the authors to work through peer reviewers’ comments.ConclusionsThese journal editors’ descriptions reveal several communication practices that might have a significant impact on the peer-review process. Editorial strategies to manage miscommunication are discussed. Further research on these proposed strategies and on communication practices from the point of view of authors and peer reviewers is warranted.

scholarly journals A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ketevan Glonti ◽  
Daniel Cauchi ◽  
Erik Cobo ◽  
Isabelle Boutron ◽  
David Moher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Manuscript Review ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewers

IntroductionThe primary functions of peer reviewers are poorly defined. Thus far no body of literature has systematically identified the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of biomedical journals. A clear establishment of these can lead to improvements in the peer review process. The purpose of this scoping review is to determine what is known on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers.MethodsWe will use the methodological framework first proposed by Arksey and O’Malley and subsequently adapted by Levacet aland the Joanna Briggs Institute. The scoping review will include all study designs, as well as editorials, commentaries and grey literature. The following eight electronic databases will be searched (from inception to May 2017): Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Educational Resources Information Center, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. Two reviewers will use inclusion and exclusion criteria based on the ‘Population–Concept–Context’ framework to independently screen titles and abstracts of articles considered for inclusion. Full-text screening of relevant eligible articles will also be carried out by two reviewers. The search strategy for grey literature will include searching in websites of existing networks, biomedical journal publishers and organisations that offer resources for peer reviewers. In addition we will review journal guidelines to peer reviewers on how to perform the manuscript review. Journals will be selected using the 2016 journal impact factor. We will identify and assess the top five, middle five and lowest-ranking five journals across all medical specialties.Ethics and disseminationThis scoping review will undertake a secondary analysis of data already collected and does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through journals and conferences targeting stakeholders involved in peer review in biomedical research.

scholarly journals PREFACE: TECHNICAL COMMISSION IV ON SPATIAL INFORMATION SCIENCE

2020 ◽  
Vol XLIII-B4-2020 ◽  
pp. 7-9
Author(s):  
S. Zlatanova ◽  
S. Dragicevic ◽  
G. Sithole
Keyword(s):  
Data Fusion ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Spatial Information ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Spatial Information Science ◽  
Advance Research

Abstract. The unusual circumstances created by the coronavirus pandemic has impacted recent activities of Commission IV. The situation also provides an excellent opportunity to connect the work of the Commission to addressing an important global problem. Managing the social and economic challenges brought by increased complexity and interconnectivity of activities in human society requires new dimensions of analysing information and specifically spatial information. The increased pressure on the usage of geographic space, maintaining sustainable development and creating liveable community environments increases the requirements for spatial decision-making tools. Commission IV Spatial Information Science (2016–2020) is dedicated to advance research activities in spatial information sciences for modelling, structuring, management, analysis, visualization and simulation of (big) data with focus on the third spatial dimension and taking into consideration dynamic changes. Special attention is given to linking information about real-world physical phenomena with societal, organizational and legal information in order to address the complexity of issues in their entirety. The Commission has contributed to advancements in data modelling, data fusion and management, visualization (web-based, VR and AR), simulation and city analytics, and 3D applications. The work had largely been implemented in cooperation with international organizations such as FIG, UDMS, 3DGeoinfo, ICA, OGC, ISO and Web3D.The Commission consists of 10 scientific areas of research that is coordinated by 10 working groups (WG) as follows - WG1: Strengthen the work on multidimensional spatial model and representations towards seamless data fusion; WG2: Advance the semantic modelling, development and linking of ontologies; WG3: Intensify research into data interpretation, quality and uncertainty modelling; WG4: Strengthen research on crowdsourced data and public participation, towards community-driven and participatory applications, collaborative mapping and use/usability of maps; WG5: Strengthen research on seamless indoor/outdoor location-based services, navigation and tracking, and analysis of human movement; WG6: Advance interoperable Internet of Things, Sensor web, SDI and linked data; WG7: Advance research on spatial data types, indexing methods and analysis to further contribute to development of spatial DBMS for management and analysis of multi-dimensional data; WG8: Encourage the use of functional programming and streaming algorithms in development of demos and applications as well as parallel and distributed processing paradigms; WG9: Advance visual analytics, online multi-dimensional visualization on mobile and desktop devices, considering human-centred applications, privacy and security issues; WG10: Advance knowledge on the use of spatial information (BIM/GIS) for urban modelling; ICWG IV/III: Global Mapping: Updating, Verification and Interoperability with the mission to promote the development of advanced methodologies and applications for the update, verification and interoperability of geospatial databases.The papers received for the ISPRS congress reflect the above-mentioned scientific research areas. The reported research ranges from advancements in new and emerging theories, through experiments and analysis to demonstration of technologies in different applications. The research was captured through papers and abstracts published in the collection of ISPRS Annals and ISPRS Archives. The papers and abstracts were selected for inclusion through a rigorous peer-review process. The ISPRS Annals contain 29 papers and the ISPRS Archives contain 114 papers. The diversity of the research topics presented in the published papers clearly indicate the wide range of topics within the field of Spatial Information Science. A rigorous peer-review process by the ISPRS TC IV Scientific Committee Working Group Chairs ensured hight quality and scientific innovation.

scholarly journals Mixed Method Study Examines Undergraduate Student Researchers’ Knowledge and Perceptions About Scholarly Communication Practices

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 159
Author(s):  
Melissa Goertzen
Keyword(s):  
Data Management ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Undergraduate Student ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Student Researchers ◽  
Communication Practices ◽  
The Impact

A Review of: Riehle, C. F., & Hensley, M. K. (2017). What do undergraduate students know about scholarly communication?: A mixed methods study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 17(1), 145–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.2017.0009 Abstract Objective – To examine undergraduate student researchers’ perception and understanding of scholarly communication practices and issues. Design – Mixed method study involving a survey and semi-structured interviews. Setting – Two major undergraduate universities in the Midwest region of the United States. Subjects – Undergraduate students who participated in or had completed undergraduate research experiences with faculty mentors. Method – The method was first approved by Institutional Review Board offices at both campuses involved in the study. Then, students received invitations to participate in a survey via email (Campus 1 = 221 students; Campus 2 = 345 students). Identical online surveys ran separately on each campus; both remained open for a period of three weeks. All respondents received a reminder email one week before the survey closed. Participants answered twelve questions related to demographics and scholarly communication practices. The survey examined knowledge and experience across five areas: the peer review process, author and publisher rights, publication and access models, impact of research, and data management. All students who completed the survey were entered in a drawing for a $50 Amazon card. The response rates were 34.8% (Campus 1) and 18.6% (Campus 2). Surveys on both campuses were administered using different software: campus 1 utilized Qualtrics survey software while campus 2 used an institution-specific survey software. Data sets were normed and merged later in the study to enable comparison and identify broad themes. Survey respondents were also invited to participate in a 15 to 20 minute follow-up interview and were compensated with a $20 Amazon gift card. The interviews consisted of four open-ended questions that further examined students’ knowledge of scholarly communication practices. The researchers coded interview transcripts and identified themes. Qualitative software was used to analyze the surveys and assess coder agreement. Finally, connections and anomalies between survey and interview results were explored. Main Results – Quantitative and qualitative data collected during the study indicate that students were most confident in their understanding of the peer-review process and data management but felt less confident in their knowledge of author and publisher rights, publication and access models, and determining the impact of scholarly research publication. In addition, they value instruction related to scholarly communication topics like the peer-review process, publication models, and data management. However, few students feel confident in their current level of knowledge or ability surrounding the previously mentioned topics. Study findings suggest that this knowledge gap is based on a lack of training or discussion of scholarly communication topics in relation to students’ research activities. Results also suggest that undergraduate students have difficulty articulating their rights as authors and their scholarly communication practices. In many cases, skill sets like data management are learned through trial and error while students progress through the research process. In some cases, faculty mentors have misperceptions and assumptions about undergraduate students’ knowledge and abilities regarding scholarly communication practices. This can create challenges for undergraduate students as they attempt to make informed decisions about research activities based on a limited foundation of experience or information. Finally, results indicate that undergraduate student researchers do not currently view the library as a place to learn about scholarly communication practices. The authors suggest that by forming strategic relationships with undergraduate research program directors, faculty, and graduate student mentors, librarians are in a prime position to incorporate scholarly communication practices into information literacy sessions or provide point-of-need coaching. Conclusion – The researchers conclude that academic libraries are in a unique position to support overarching research, teaching, and learning goals within the academic community. By developing programs that support information literacy and scholarly communication, libraries demonstrate value and align goals with teaching and learning priorities within the higher education community as a whole. Through this work, librarians support students as knowledge creators and advocate for training that emphasizes data literacy, copyright and authors’ rights, and the impact of research within specific disciplines.

scholarly journals The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation

F1000Research ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanie Gregorius ◽  
Laura Dean ◽  
Donald C Cole ◽  
Imelda Bates
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Assessment Criteria ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Process Data ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Capacity Strengthening

Background: Evaluating applications for multi-national, multi-disciplinary, dual-purpose research consortia is highly complex. There has been little research on the peer review process for evaluating grant applications and almost none on how applications for multi-national consortia are reviewed. Overseas development investments are increasingly being channelled into international science consortia to generate high-quality research while simultaneously strengthening multi-disciplinary research capacity. We need a better understanding of how such decisions are made and their effectiveness. Methods: An award-making institution planned to fund 10 UK-Africa research consortia. Over two annual rounds, 34 out of 78 eligible applications were shortlisted and reviewed by at least five external reviewers before final selections were made by a face-to-face panel. We used an innovative approach involving structured, overt observations of award-making panel meetings and semi-structured interviews with panel members to explore how assessment criteria concerning research quality and capacity strengthening were applied during the peer review process. Data were coded and analysed using pre-designed matrices which incorporated categories relating to the assessment criteria. Results: In general the process was rigorous and well-managed. However, lack of clarity about differential weighting of criteria and variations in the panel’s understanding of research capacity strengthening resulted in some inconsistencies in use of the assessment criteria. Using the same panel for both rounds had advantages, in that during the second round consensus was achieved more quickly and the panel had increased focus on development aspects. Conclusion: Grant assessment panels for such complex research applications need to have topic- and context-specific expertise. They must also understand research capacity issues and have a flexible but equitable and transparent approach. This study has developed and tested an approach for evaluating the operation of such panels and has generated lessons that can promote coherence and transparency among grant-makers and ultimately make the award-making process more effective.

scholarly journals Preface: Technical Commission IV on Spatial Information Science

2020 ◽  
Vol V-4-2020 ◽  
pp. 7-9
Author(s):  
S. Zlatanova ◽  
S. Dragicevic ◽  
G. Sithole
Keyword(s):  
Data Fusion ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Spatial Information ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Spatial Information Science ◽  
Advance Research

Abstract. The unusual circumstances created by the coronavirus pandemic has impacted recent activities of Commission IV. The situation also provides an excellent opportunity to connect the work of the Commission to addressing an important global problem. Managing the social and economic challenges brought by increased complexity and interconnectivity of activities in human society requires new dimensions of analysing information and specifically spatial information. The increased pressure on the usage of geographic space, maintaining sustainable development and creating liveable community environments increases the requirements for spatial decision-making tools. Commission IV Spatial Information Science (2016–2020) is dedicated to advance research activities in spatial information sciences for modelling, structuring, management, analysis, visualization and simulation of (big) data with focus on the third spatial dimension and taking into consideration dynamic changes. Special attention is given to linking information about real-world physical phenomena with societal, organizational and legal information in order to address the complexity of issues in their entirety. The Commission has contributed to advancements in data modelling, data fusion and management, visualization (web-based, VR and AR), simulation and city analytics, and 3D applications. The work had largely been implemented in cooperation with international organizations such as FIG, UDMS, 3DGeoinfo, ICA, OGC, ISO and Web3D.The Commission consists of 10 scientific areas of research that is coordinated by 10 working groups (WG) as follows - WG1: Strengthen the work on multidimensional spatial model and representations towards seamless data fusion; WG2: Advance the semantic modelling, development and linking of ontologies; WG3: Intensify research into data interpretation, quality and uncertainty modelling; WG4: Strengthen research on crowdsourced data and public participation, towards community-driven and participatory applications, collaborative mapping and use/usability of maps; WG5: Strengthen research on seamless indoor/outdoor location-based services, navigation and tracking, and analysis of human movement; WG6: Advance interoperable Internet of Things, Sensor web, SDI and linked data; WG7: Advance research on spatial data types, indexing methods and analysis to further contribute to development of spatial DBMS for management and analysis of multi-dimensional data; WG8: Encourage the use of functional programming and streaming algorithms in development of demos and applications as well as parallel and distributed processing paradigms; WG9: Advance visual analytics, online multi-dimensional visualization on mobile and desktop devices, considering human-centred applications, privacy and security issues; WG10: Advance knowledge on the use of spatial information (BIM/GIS) for urban modelling; ICWG IV/III: Global Mapping: Updating, Verification and Interoperability with the mission to promote the development of advanced methodologies and applications for the update, verification and interoperability of geospatial databases.The papers received for the ISPRS congress reflect the above-mentioned scientific research areas. The reported research ranges from advancements in new and emerging theories, through experiments and analysis to demonstration of technologies in different applications. The research was captured through papers and abstracts published in the collection of ISPRS Annals and ISPRS Archives. The papers and abstracts were selected for inclusion through a rigorous peer-review process. The ISPRS Annals contain 29 papers and the ISPRS Archives contain 114 papers. The diversity of the research topics presented in the published papers clearly indicate the wide range of topics within the field of Spatial Information Science. A rigorous peer-review process by the ISPRS TC IV Scientific Committee Working Group Chairs ensured hight quality and scientific innovation.

scholarly journals The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation

F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanie Gregorius ◽  
Laura Dean ◽  
Donald C Cole ◽  
Imelda Bates
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Assessment Criteria ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Process Data ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Capacity Strengthening

Background: Evaluating applications for multi-national, multi-disciplinary, dual-purpose research consortia is highly complex. There has been little research on the peer review process for evaluating grant applications and almost none on how applications for multi-national consortia are reviewed. Overseas development investments are increasingly being channelled into international science consortia to generate high-quality research while simultaneously strengthening multi-disciplinary research capacity. We need a better understanding of how such decisions are made and their effectiveness.Methods: An award-making institution planned to fund 10 UK-Africa research consortia. Over two annual rounds, 34 out of 78 eligible applications were shortlisted and reviewed by at least five external reviewers before final selections were made by a face-to-face panel. We used an innovative approach involving structured, overt observations of award-making panel meetings and semi-structured interviews with panel members to explore how assessment criteria concerning research quality and capacity strengthening were applied during the peer review process. Data were coded and analysed using pre-designed matrices which incorporated categories relating to the assessment criteria.Results: In general the process was rigorous and well-managed. However, lack of clarity about differential weighting of criteria and variations in the panel’s understanding of research capacity strengthening resulted in some inconsistencies in use of the assessment criteria. Using the same panel for both rounds had advantages, in that during the second round consensus was achieved more quickly and the panel had increased focus on development aspects.Conclusion: Grant assessment panels for such complex research applications need to have topic- and context-specific expertise. They must also understand research capacity issues and have a flexible but equitable and transparent approach. This study has developed and tested an approach for evaluating the operation of such panels and has generated lessons that can promote coherence and transparency among grant-makers and ultimately make the award-making process more effective.

HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER

2003 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 47-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dale J. Benos ◽  
Kevin L. Kirk ◽  
John E. Hall
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Formal Training ◽  
Manuscript Review

Most scientists acquire their training in manuscript review not through instruction but by actually doing it. Formal training in manuscript analysis is rarely, if ever, provided. Editors usually choose reviewers because of expertise in a given subject area and availability. If an individual repeatedly submits bad reviews, it is likely that that person will not be asked to review a manuscript again. Being invited to review a manuscript is an honor, not only because you are being recognized for your eminence in a particular area of research but also because of the responsibility and service you provide to the journal and scientific community. The purpose of this article is to define how best to peer review an article. We will stipulate several principles of peer review and discuss some of the main elements of a good manuscript review, the basic responsibilities of a reviewer, and the rewards and responsibilities that accompany this process. Proper reviewer conduct is essential for making the peer review process valuable and the journal trustworthy.

Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again

1982 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas P. Peters ◽  
Stephen J. Ceci
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Human Potential ◽  
Natural Setting ◽  
American Psychology ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Actual Evaluation ◽  
To Receive

AbstractA growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability, accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there has been very little direct research on these variables.The present investigation was an attempt to study the peer-review process directly, in the natural setting of actual journal referee evaluations of submitted manuscripts. As test materials we selected 12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as “serious methodological flaws.” A number of possible interpretations of these data are reviewed and evaluated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document