Peer Review of Manuscripts: A Valuable yet Neglected Educational Tool for Early-Career Researchers

With the number of publications being all-time high, academic peer review is imperative to ensure high-quality research content. The wider involvement of postgraduate, early-career researchers (ECRs) has been proposed on several platforms to address the unsustainability of the peer review process caused by a lack of peer reviewers. A survey involving 1203 academics and ECRs in ten countries revealed their attitudes towards the involvement of ECRs in the peer review process. The trends and motives were identified, with emphasis on the peer review being an oft-neglected tool in the skill development of ECRs. In light of the survey results, the transferrable skills that ECRs acquire from performing peer reviews at a crucial stage in their career development are systematically explored. The findings call for further engagement of ECRs in the peer review process under supervisory mentoring.

Download Full-text

Perspectives for early-career researchers on plagiarism and scientific integrity

FACETS ◽

10.1139/facets-2019-0031 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 17-25

Author(s):

Robert G. Young ◽

T. Fatima Mitterboeck

Keyword(s):

Graduate Students ◽

Intellectual Property ◽

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Scientific Investigation ◽

Early Career ◽

Scientific Integrity ◽

Predatory Journals ◽

Early Career Researchers

Lapses in scientific integrity, such as plagiarism, persist in the scientific realm. To be successful and contributory, early-career researchers (ECRs), including graduate students, need to be able to effectively navigate the literature, peer-review process, and scientific research with integrity. Here we discuss different aspects of scientific integrity related to ECRs. Our discussion centres on the concepts of plagiarism and intellectual property, predatory journals, aspects of peer review, transparency in publishing, and false advanced accreditations. Negative elements within these topics may be especially damaging to ECRs, who may be less familiar with the research landscape. We highlight the need for ECRs to approach scientific investigation cautiously and thoughtfully to promote integrity through critical thinking.

Download Full-text

How to publish your manuscript successfully (with Wiley)

10.22541/au.161617745.50080991/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Matteo Cavalleri

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Early Career ◽

Training Module ◽

Early Career Researchers

Part of the training module on publishing with the Council of Australian University Librarians, this 1h webinar provides tips to Early Career Researchers on how to write and accompany an article through the peer-review process. Not specific to Wiley journals, but why go elsewhere, really?

Download Full-text

The role and significance of peer-review in Russian and foreign library and information science journals: a comparative analysis

Science Editor and Publisher ◽

10.24069/sep-21-03 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

V. N. Gureyev ◽

N. A. Mazov

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Information Science ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Library And Information Science ◽

Review System ◽

Academic Journals ◽

Peer Reviews ◽

Peer Reviewers

The paper summarizes experience of the authors as peer-reviewers of more than 100 manuscripts in twelve Russian and foreign academic journals on Library and Information Science in the last seven years. Prepared peer-reviews were used for making a list of the most usual critical and special comments for each manuscript that were subsequently structured for the conducted analyzes. Typical issues accompanying the peer-review process are shown. Significant differences between the results of peer-review in Russian and foreign journals are detected: although the initial quality of newly submitted manuscripts is approximately equal, the final published versions in foreign journals addressed all critical and the majority of minor reviewers’ comments, while in Russian journals more than one third of final versions were published with critical gaps. We conclude about low interest in high quality peer reviews among both authors and editors-in-chief in Russian journals. Despite the limitations of the samples, the obtained findings can be useful when evaluating the current peer-review system in Russian academic journals on Library and Information Science.

Download Full-text

The benefits to climate science of including Early Career Scientists as reviewers

10.5194/gc-2019-20 ◽

2019 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mathieu Casado ◽

Gwenaëlle Gremion ◽

Paul Rosenbaum ◽

Jilda Alicia Caccavo ◽

Kelsey Aho ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Scientific Knowledge ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Climate Science ◽

Work Force ◽

Early Career ◽

Similar Proportion ◽

Intergovernmental Panel ◽

Peer Reviewers

Abstract. Early Career Scientists (ECS) are a large part of the work force in science. While they produce new scientific knowledge that they share in publications, they are rarely invited to participate in the peer-review process. Barriers to the participation of ECS as peer-reviewers include, among others, their lack of visibility to editors, inexperience in the review process and lack of confidence in their scientific knowledge. Participation of ECS in group reviews, e.g. for assessment reports, provides an opportunity for ECS to advance their skill set and to contribute to policy relevant products. Here, we present the outcomes of a group peer-review of the first order draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (IPCC SROCC). Overall, PhD students spent more time on the review than those further advanced in their careers, and provided a similar proportion of substantive comments. After the review, participants reported feeling more confident about their skills, and 86 % were interested in reviewing individually. By soliciting and including ECS in the peer-review process, the scientific community would not only reduce the burden carried by more established scientists, but permit their successors to develop important professional skills relevant to advancing climate science and influencing policy.

Download Full-text

A Guide to Preprinting for Early Career Researchers

10.31219/osf.io/e59tk ◽

2022 ◽

Author(s):

Cassandra Lane Ettinger ◽

Madhumala K. Sadanandappa ◽

Kivanc Görgülü ◽

Karen Coghlan ◽

Kenneth K. Hallenbeck ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Life Sciences ◽

Research Community ◽

Early Career ◽

Decision Makers ◽

Future Research ◽

Early Career Researchers

The use of preprints, research manuscripts shared publicly before the traditional peer review process, is becoming more common in the life sciences. Early career researchers (ECRs) benefit from posting preprints as they are shareable, citable, and prove productivity. However, the decision to preprint a manuscript involves a discussion among all co-authors, and ECRs are often not the decision-makers. Therefore, ECRs may find themselves in situations where they are interested in posting a preprint but are unsure how to approach their co-authors or advisor about preprinting. Leveraging our own experiences as ECRs, and feedback from the research community, we have constructed a guide for ECRs who are considering preprinting - to enable them to take ownership over the process, and to raise awareness about preprinting options. We hope that this guide helps ECRs to initiate conversations about preprinting with co-authors or consider whether to preprint their future research.

Download Full-text

The benefits to climate science of including early-career scientists as reviewers

Geoscience Communication ◽

10.5194/gc-3-89-2020 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

pp. 89-97

Author(s):

Mathieu Casado ◽

Gwenaëlle Gremion ◽

Paul Rosenbaum ◽

Jilda Alicia Caccavo ◽

Kelsey Aho ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Scientific Knowledge ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Climate Science ◽

Early Career ◽

Similar Proportion ◽

Intergovernmental Panel ◽

First Order ◽

Peer Reviewers

Abstract. Early-career scientists (ECSs) are a large part of the workforce in science. While they produce new scientific knowledge that they share in publications, they are rarely invited to participate in the peer-review process. Barriers to the participation of ECSs as peer reviewers include, among other things, their lack of visibility to editors, inexperience in the review process and lack of confidence in their scientific knowledge. Participation of ECSs in group reviews, e.g. for regional or global assessment reports, provides an opportunity for ECSs to advance their skill set and to contribute to policy-relevant products. Here, we present the outcomes of a group peer review of the First Order Draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC). Overall, PhD students spent more time on the review than those further advanced in their careers and provided a similar proportion of substantive comments. After the review, participants reported feeling more confident in their skills, and 86 % were interested in reviewing individually. By soliciting and including ECSs in the peer-review process, the scientific community would not only reduce the burden carried by more established scientists but also permit their successors to develop important professional skills relevant to advancing climate science and influencing policy.

Download Full-text

Quantifying the Volunteer Effort of Scientific Peer Reviewing

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society ◽

10.1175/bams-d-11-00129.1 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 93 (3) ◽

pp. 337-345 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Mary Golden ◽

David M. Schultz

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Early Career ◽

Peer Reviewing ◽

Peer Reviewers ◽

Individual Contributions ◽

Survey Review ◽

The Individual ◽

Monthly Weather Review

A survey of 310 reviewers for Monthly Weather Review addresses how much time and effort goes into the peer-review process and provides insight into how reviewers function. Using these data, the individual and collective contributions of volunteer peer reviewers to the peer-review process can be determined. Individually, respondents to the survey review an average of 2 manuscripts a year for Monthly Weather Review, 4 manuscripts a year for AMS journals, and 8 manuscripts a year in total, although some review more than 20 manuscripts a year. Each review takes an average of 9.6 h. Summing the individual contributions of the reviewers, respondents averaged 18 h yr−1 performing reviews for Monthly Weather Review, 36 h yr−1 for AMS journals, and 63 h yr−1 for all journals. The collective time that all of the reviewers put into the peer-review process for all manuscripts submitted to Monthly Weather Review for each year amounts to 362,179 h, or more than 4 years of voluntary labor valued at over $2.34 million. Nearly all respondents (95%) are comfortable with their current load, but only 30% said that they would be willing to perform more reviews. Because the number of submissions to journals has been increasing over time and is unlikely to decrease in the near future, this burden is anticipated to grow. Options for reducing the burden include using fewer reviewers per manuscript, increasing the number of unilateral decisions made by editors, and increasing the size of the reviewer pool (particularly from active retired and early-career scientists).

Download Full-text

Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication and Scientific Publishing

Nepalese Journal of Development and Rural Studies ◽

10.3126/njdrs.v17i0.34947 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Evaluating, Improving, and Appreciating Peer Review at IJTMB

International Journal of Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork Research Education & Practice ◽

10.3822/ijtmb.v14i1.637 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process

F1000Research ◽

10.12688/f1000research.8452.1 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 5 ◽

pp. 683 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Marco Giordan ◽

Attila Csikasz-Nagy ◽

Andrew M. Collings ◽

Federico Vaggi

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Final Decision ◽

Scientific Journals ◽

Scientific Publications ◽

Peer Reviewers ◽

Decision Type ◽

Number Of Citations ◽

Decision Times

BackgroundPublishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications.MethodsHere we examine an element of the editorial process ateLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions toeLifesince June 2012, of which 2,750 were sent for peer review, using R and Python to perform the statistical analysis.ResultsThe Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and 5 days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). There was no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates for published articles where the Reviewing Editor served as one of the peer reviewers.ConclusionsAn important aspect ofeLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.

Download Full-text