scholarly journals Publishing more than reviewing? Some ethical musings on the sustainability of the peer review process

Organization ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 135050842110510
Author(s):  
Dirk Lindebaum ◽  
Peter J Jordan
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Institutional Goals ◽  
Audit Culture ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Professional Meeting ◽  
Political Intervention ◽  
The Right ◽  
Collective Goals ◽  
Workload Models

Based on our editorial experience, and acknowledging the regular editor grievances about reviewer disengagement at professional meeting and conferences, in this article we argue that the review system is in need of significant repair. We argue that this has emerged because an audit culture in academia and individual incentives (like reduced teaching loads or publication bonuses) have eroded the willingness of individuals to engage in the collective enterprise of peer-reviewing each others’ work on a quid pro quo basis. In response to this, we emphasise why it is unethical for potential reviewers to disengage from the review process, and outline the implications for our profession if colleagues publish more than they review. Designed as a political intervention in response to reviewer disengagement, we aim to ‘politicise’ the review process and its consequences for the sustainability of the scholarly community. We propose three pathways towards greater reviewer engagement: (i) senior scholars setting the right kind of ‘reviewer’ example; (ii) journals introducing recognition awards to foster a healthy reviewer progression path and (iii) universities and accreditation bodies moving to explicitly recognise reviewing in workload models and evaluations. While all three proposals have merit, the latter point is especially powerful in fostering reviewer engagement as it aligns individual and institutional goals in ‘measurable’ ways. In this way, ironically, the audit culture can be subverted to address the imbalance between individual and collective goals.

scholarly journals The Problem with Peer Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bård Smedsrød ◽  
Erik Lieungh
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Individual Researcher ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Publishing Houses ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The University ◽  
Insight Into

In this episode professor at UIT - The Arctic University of Norway, Bård Smedsrød, gives us an insight into peer review. How does the system work today, and what's problematic with it? Smedsrød also offers some solutions and encourages Universities to be much more involved in the peer review process. The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh. You can also read Bård's latest paper on peer reviewing: Peer reviewing: a private affair between the individual researcher and the publishing houses, or responsibility of the university? This episode was first published 2 November 2018.

scholarly journals On peer reviewing: how to nourish an author’s mind and win a JLDHE editor’s heart

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleanor Loughlin ◽  
Alicja Syska ◽  
Gita Sedghi ◽  
Christina Howell-Richardson
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Good Publication ◽  
Seminar Series ◽  
Learning Development

Editors and publishers of scholarly journals rarely agree on what makes for a good publication; they do, however, agree on the need for a robust peer review process as a crucial means to judge the merits of potential publications. While fraught with issues and inefficiencies, a critical and supportive peer review is not only what editors rely on when assessing scholarship presented for publication but also what authors hope for in order to improve their work. Understanding how peer review may best serve all parties involved: authors, editors, and reviewers, is thus at the heart of this article. The analysis offered here is based on a session the Journal for Learning Development in Higher Education editors gave at the 2020 LD@3 seminar series, entitled ‘The Art of Reviewing’. It explores the different aspects of the peer review process while formulating recommendations regarding best practices and outlining JLDHE initiatives for supporting reviewers’ vital work.

scholarly journals Happy New Year from the Editor

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Zimmerman
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Staff ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Argument Validity ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Care Technology

Dear readers, advisors, authors, editors, and peer reviewers, As we welcome the new year, we look forward to the opportunity to publish new arguments and pose challenging questions about ethical dilemmas in the realm of medicine, science, and technology. Reflecting on the peer review process at this juncture seems especially important considering the bioethics climate and the challenges in doing justice to ethical dilemmas. Unlike scientific peer review, replicability, reliability, and evaluation of methods are largely irrelevant to much of the bioethics literature, except for empirical research. Much like papers published in law, the humanities, and social sciences, peer reviewing contextual arguments in bioethics requires us to evaluate argument validity and ensure that arguments are based on facts or appropriate hypotheticals. The risk that voices are quieted merely because the editorial staff or peer reviewers would choose the other side of an argument is high and requires mitigation steeped in serious processes built into the peer review system. It is especially important to hear diverse views that represent many points along a continuum during polarized times. The papers that offer conceptual arguments that we tend to publish at Voices in Bioethics call for an examination of logic and argument foremost, with a special emphasis on which conclusions are drawn from the premises supplied. At Voices in Bioethics, the peer review process aims to be inclusive, so we balance our instincts to criticize with our goal to accept as many papers that meet our guidelines as possible. We welcome new arguments, especially ones that highlight overlooked viewpoints, considerations, or stakeholders. We acknowledge how many great ideas result from people who speak English as a second or third language, or who do not use English at all. All of those affected by or who observe an ethical dilemma are welcome to submit their ethics arguments surrounding health care, technology, the environment, and the broader sciences. We are happy to read papers by those outside of bioethics and those with any level of education. We use the peer review questions about mechanics only to inform editors of what the process might entail. We do not accept or reject based on mechanics or style alone. The nature of many bioethics journals is to publish papers that may reflect the bioethics status quo or apply common bioethical frameworks to new problems. In addition to that, we try to showcase new ways of thinking and additional considerations. After all, publishing is not about publishing papers that mimic older well-cited articles or that apply only those frameworks learned in the classroom. It is about giving voice and contributing to an open access ecosystem where new and old ideas coexist, their worth measured not in hits or likes, but in their contribution to ethical analysis. Wishing a happy new year to our advisors, editors, peer reviewers, authors, and readers.

scholarly journals Volume 10, Issue 2, Formation

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e1-e15
Author(s):  
Taif Alawsi ◽  
Ula Al-Kawaz
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Online System ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Peer Review Procedure

In editors of the Iraqi Journal of Embryos and Infertility Researches (IJEIR) are thankful to the huge efforts made by the reviewers in peer reviewing the submitted manuscripts. Thanks to their efforts the second issue of the 10th volume is now available online with open access to the articles content. We are looking forward in inclusion in relevant indexing in the near future. We would like to acknowledge the reviewers for their contribution, and we wish them the greatest success. We ensured the anonymity of both reviewers and authors and followed a double-blind peer-review procedure. We strictly followed the COPE ethical code in the published studies. As of now, the IJEIR is published in new website https://ijeir.net/index.php/ijeir supported by the Open Journal Systems (OJS), therefore all the activities were strictly by the online system. Journal reviewers were given the proper credit via Publons (an online platform that promotes the peer review process). Currently, IJEIR is indexed in Google Scholar, Science gate, Crossref, Iraqi academic journals, Publons, Dimensions, LOCKSS, and CLOCKSS. Our articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License and the rights are with the authors which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0  

Scientific Paper Peer-Reviewing System With Blockchain, IPFS, and Smart Contract

2019 ◽  
pp. 189-221
Author(s):  
Shantanu Kumar Rahut ◽  
Razwan Ahmed Tanvir ◽  
Sharfi Rahman ◽  
Shamim Akhter
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Paper ◽  
Research Grants ◽  
Blockchain Technology ◽  
Smart Contract ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Relevant Field

In general, peer reviewing is known as an inspection of a work that is completed by one or more qualified people from the same profession and from the relevant field to make the work more error-free, readable, presentable, and adjustable according to the pre-published requirements and also considered as the primary metric for publishing a research paper, accepting research grants, or selecting award nominees. However, many recent publications are pointing to the biasness and mistreatment in the peer-review process. Thus, the scientific community is involved to generate ideas to advance the reviewing process including standardizing procedures and protocols, blind and electronic reviewing, rigorous methods in reviewer selection, rewarding reviewers, providing detailed feedback or checklist to reviewers, etc. In this chapter, the authors propose a decentralized and anonymous scientific peer-reviewing system using blockchain technology. This system will integrate all the above concern issues and eliminate the bias or trust issues interconnected with the peer-reviewing process.

scholarly journals PREFACE: TECHNICAL COMMISSION I

2021 ◽  
Vol V-1-2021 ◽  
pp. 7-7
Author(s):  
S. Hinz ◽  
R. Q. Feitosa ◽  
M. Weinmann ◽  
B. Jutzi
Keyword(s):  
Remote Sensing ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Integral Approach ◽  
Full Paper ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Sensing Platforms ◽  
Conditional Acceptance

Abstract. For ISPRS Technical Commission I (TC I), 76 submissions for the 2021 Congress edition of ISPRS Annals and ISPRS Archives were received. This included both full paper and abstract submissions from all over the world. Continuing the success of double blind paper reviewing in preparation of the 2016 Prague congress, the 2018 Karlsruhe symposium as well as the 2020 edition of the ISPRS congress, also this time, TC I organized a strict peer-reviewing process. This included double-blind reviewing for full papers as well as a two-stage evaluation of abstract submissions – first stage based on the submitted abstracts (“conditional acceptance”), and second stage after submission of the respective final papers.For the 2021 edition of the ISPRS congress, we received 32 full paper submissions and 46 abstract submissions, which underlines the trend towards full paper submissions compared to previous TC I events.17 full papers passed the double-blind peer-review process and were accepted for publication in the ISPRS Annals (acceptance rate 53%); none of the papers was reviewed by less than two reviewers; for the majority of full papers, three or four reviews were obtained. Abstract submissions and their respective final papers were reviewed by a team of professionals. In total, 28 papers were accepted to the ISPRS Archives.Strict peer-reviewing relies on many voluntary reviewers spending their time for reading and evaluating the submissions. We would like to express our thanks to our reviewing team – especially since they were again willing to contribute to the review process just after completion of the 2020 edition of the ISPRS congress.The manuscripts in both the ISPRS Annals and Archives cover a broad range of topics related to remote sensing platforms, technologies, systems and related methods and reflect the current trends in algorithmic research and developments in sensing and data acquisition methods. Noteworthy is that numerous contributions were again submitted to Intercommission WGs of TC I with TC II and TC IV, which underlines the continuing trend towards an integral approach to sensors, systems and methods in photogrammetry, remote sensing and mobile mapping.

scholarly journals Open Up: A Survey on Open and Non-anonymized Peer Reviewing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lonni Besançon ◽  
Niklas Rönnberg ◽  
Jonas Löwgren ◽  
Jonathan P. Tennant ◽  
Matthew Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Human Computer Interaction ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Open Review

We present a discussion and analysis regarding the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review based on literature results and responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open-review track within the CHI conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI). This track currently is the only implementation of an open-peer-review process in the field of HCI while, with the recent increase in interest in open science practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields. We collected 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers and found that, while the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well liked by alt.chi participants, they are reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews.

Scientific Paper Peer-Reviewing System With Blockchain, IPFS, and Smart Contract

2021 ◽  
pp. 1029-1060
Author(s):  
Shantanu Kumar Rahut ◽  
Razwan Ahmed Tanvir ◽  
Sharfi Rahman ◽  
Shamim Akhter
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Paper ◽  
Research Grants ◽  
Blockchain Technology ◽  
Smart Contract ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Relevant Field

In general, peer reviewing is known as an inspection of a work that is completed by one or more qualified people from the same profession and from the relevant field to make the work more error-free, readable, presentable, and adjustable according to the pre-published requirements and also considered as the primary metric for publishing a research paper, accepting research grants, or selecting award nominees. However, many recent publications are pointing to the biasness and mistreatment in the peer-review process. Thus, the scientific community is involved to generate ideas to advance the reviewing process including standardizing procedures and protocols, blind and electronic reviewing, rigorous methods in reviewer selection, rewarding reviewers, providing detailed feedback or checklist to reviewers, etc. In this chapter, the authors propose a decentralized and anonymous scientific peer-reviewing system using blockchain technology. This system will integrate all the above concern issues and eliminate the bias or trust issues interconnected with the peer-reviewing process.

scholarly journals Peer reviewing made easy

2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 150-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neel Halder ◽  
Rosalind Ramsay ◽  
Peter Tyrer ◽  
Patricia Casey
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewing

SummaryPeer review in scientific journals has existed for over 200 years. This process is currently the accepted way of assessing scientific manuscripts prior to publication for most journals. Despite this, little has been written about the process of peer reviewing, with hardly anything specific to psychiatric journals. This article answers fundamental questions related to peer reviewing and includes practical tips to writing reviews. It will be helpful for those keen on improving their knowledge about the peer-review process. It will not only benefit those who are reviewers or thinking about becoming reviewers, but also authors, who can use the information to improve their chances of publication.

scholarly journals Which Are the Tools Available for Scholars? A Review of Assisting Software for Authors during Peer Reviewing Process

Publications ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
J. Israel Martínez-López ◽  
Samantha Barrón-González ◽  
Alejandro Martínez López
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Plagiarism Detection ◽  
Comprehensive Understanding ◽  
New Classification ◽  
Data Archiving ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Technology And Communication ◽  
Academic Search

There is a large amount of Information Technology and Communication (ITC) tools that surround scholar activity. The prominent place of the peer-review process upon publication has promoted a crowded market of technological tools in several formats. Despite this abundance, many tools are unexploited or underused because they are not known by the academic community. In this study, we explored the availability and characteristics of the assisting tools for the peer-reviewing process. The aim was to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the tools available at this time, and to hint at new trends for further developments. The result of an examination of literature assisted the creation of a novel taxonomy of types of software available in the market. This new classification is divided into nine categories as follows: (I) Identification and social media, (II) Academic search engines, (III) Journal-abstract matchmakers, (IV) Collaborative text editors, (V) Data visualization and analysis tools, (VI) Reference management, (VII) Proofreading and plagiarism detection, (VIII) Data archiving, and (IX) Scientometrics and Altmetrics. Considering these categories and their defining traits, a curated list of 220 software tools was completed using a crowdfunded database (AlternativeTo) to identify relevant programs and ongoing trends and perspectives of tools developed and used by scholars.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document