scholarly journals Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers’ confidential comments to editors

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0260558
Author(s):  
Bridget C. O’Brien ◽  
Anthony R. Artino ◽  
Joseph A. Costello ◽  
Erik Driessen ◽  
Lauren A. Maggio
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Argument Quality ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Coding Scheme ◽  
Explicit Reference ◽  
Education Journal ◽  
Single Blind

Purpose Recent calls to improve transparency in peer review have prompted examination of many aspects of the peer-review process. Peer-review systems often allow confidential comments to editors that could reduce transparency to authors, yet this option has escaped scrutiny. Our study explores 1) how reviewers use the confidential comments section and 2) alignment between comments to the editor and comments to authors with respect to content and tone. Methods Our dataset included 358 reviews of 168 manuscripts submitted between January 1, 2019 and August 24, 2020 to a health professions education journal with a single blind review process. We first identified reviews containing comments to the editor. Then, for the reviews with comments, we used procedures consistent with conventional and directed qualitative content analysis to develop a coding scheme and code comments for content, tone, and section of the manuscript. For reviews in which the reviewer recommended “reject,” we coded for alignment between reviewers’ comments to the editor and to authors. We report descriptive statistics. Results 49% of reviews contained comments to the editor (n = 176). Most of these comments summarized the reviewers’ impression of the article (85%), which included explicit reference to their recommended decision (44%) and suitability for the journal (10%). The majority of comments addressed argument quality (56%) or research design/methods/data (51%). The tone of comments tended to be critical (40%) or constructive (34%). For the 86 reviews recommending “reject,” the majority of comments to the editor contained content that also appeared in comments to the authors (80%); additional content tended to be irrelevant to the manuscript. Tone frequently aligned (91%). Conclusion Findings indicate variability in how reviewers use the confidential comments to editor section in online peer-review systems, though generally the way they use them suggests integrity and transparency to authors.

scholarly journals Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget C O'Brien ◽  
Anthony R Artino ◽  
Joseph A Costello ◽  
Erik Driessen ◽  
Lauren A Maggio
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Argument Quality ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Coding Scheme ◽  
Explicit Reference ◽  
Education Journal ◽  
Single Blind

Purpose: Recent calls to improve transparency in peer review have prompted examination of many aspects of the peer review process. Peer review systems often allow confidential comments to editors that could reduce transparency to authors, yet this option has escaped scrutiny. Our study explores 1) how reviewers use the confidential comments section and 2) alignment between comments to the editor and comments to authors with respect to content and tone. Methods: Our dataset included 358 reviews of 168 manuscripts submitted between January 1, 2019 and August 24, 2020 to a health professions education journal with a single blind review process. We first identified reviews containing comments to the editor. Then, for the reviews with comments, we used procedures consistent with conventional and directed qualitative content analysis to develop a coding scheme and code comments for content, tone, and section of the manuscript. For reviews in which the reviewer recommended "reject," we coded for alignment between reviewers' comments to the editor and to authors. We report descriptive statistics. Results: 49% of reviews contained comments to the editor (n=176). Most of these comments summarized the reviewers' impression of the article (85%), which included explicit reference to their recommended decision (44%) and suitability for the journal (10%). The majority of comments addressed argument quality (56%) or research design/methods/data (51%). The tone of comments tended to be critical (40%) or constructive (34%). For the 48 reviews recommending "reject," the majority of comments to the editor contained content that also appeared in comments to the authors (65%); additional content tended to be irrelevant to the manuscript. Tone frequently aligned (85%). Conclusion: Findings indicate variability in how reviewers use the confidential comments to editor section in online peer review systems, though generally the way they use them suggests integrity and transparency to authors.

scholarly journals Peer review blinding practices of highly ranked dental journals: analysis and discussion

BDJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Lower Odds ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Single Blind

AbstractObjectives To evaluate the type of peer review blinding used in highly ranked dental journals and to discuss the influence of the blinding approaches on the peer review process.Methods All 91 dental journals classified by impact factor (IF) had their websites scrutinised for the type of peer review blinding used for submissions. If the information was not reported, the journals were contacted to obtain the information. Linear and logistic regression were applied to evaluate the association between type of peer review blinding and IF.Results The selected journals reported the following peer review blinding approaches: single-blind (N = 36, 39.6%), double-blind (N = 46, 50.5%), transparent (N = 2, 2.2%) and open (N = 1, 1.1%). Information from six (6.6%) journals was not available. A linear regression analysis demonstrated that journals with lower IFs were associated with double-blind review (p = 0.001). A logistic regression suggested lower odds of association between single-blind peer review and journals with IFs below a threshold of 2 (odds ratio 0.157, confidence interval 0.059 to 0.417, p <0.001).Conclusions The majority of highly ranked dental journals had single- and double-blind peer review; journals with higher IFs presented single-blind peer review and those with lower IFs reported double-blind peer review.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2022 ◽  
Vol 2161 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Assistant Professor ◽  
Committee Chair ◽  
Programme Committee ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Institute Of Technology ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind All the articles of AICECS 2021 followed the “Single-blind” peer review process, where the reviewers were aware of the authors’ identity but not vice-versa • Conference submission management system: EasyChair All the submission and communication to all the AICECS 2021 authors were through EasyChair (https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=aicecs2021) • Number of submissions received: 149 • Number of submissions sent for review: 136 • Number of submissions accepted: 78 • Acceptance Rate: 52.3% (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): (78/149) x 100 = 52.3%) • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 106 Any additional info on review process: All the initial submissions went through a single-blind review, based on the subject experts (reviewers) and Technical Programme Committee Chair (TPC) and General Chair decision (accept or major revision or minor revision or reject) communicated to the authors through EasyChair. Based on the recommendation, the authors revised the articles and submitted their revised papers. The revised submission was verified by the TPC and General Chair for their final recommendation for the submission. Online similarity check has been carried out using Turnitin software at all the stages from submission to acceptance. Contact person for queries: Name : Dr. Tanweer Assistant Professor-Senior Scale, Department of E&C, General Chair, AICECS 2021, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal, Karnataka, India Email : [email protected]; [email protected]

scholarly journals Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth C Moylan ◽  
Simon Harold ◽  
Ciaran O’Neill ◽  
Maria K Kowalczuk
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Single Blind

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 926 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Minor Revision ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind Table 1 shows the evaluation aspects in the review process at The 3rd ICoGEE 2021. Several essential things in scientific articles are reviewed through this evaluation aspect, such as novelty, originality, clarity of methods and analysis, and their significance in science and technology. If an evaluation aspect has less than good quality, the reviewer provides suggestions for improvement, and the author must improve it or provide feedback. The reviewer will also offer recommendations such as: (i) accept without revision (if all aspects of the evaluation have exceptional score), (ii) accept with minor revision (if there are less than two evaluation aspects whose quality is below good), (iii) accept with major revision (if there are about 2 - 4 evaluation aspects that are below good quality), and (iv) reject (if more than four evaluation aspects have below good quality or are considered not to meet the essential requirements of scientific articles). • Conference submission management system: For official The 3rd ICoGEE 2021 webpage, we used: http://icogee.org, while for paper management system, we used Easy Chair: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=icogee2021 • Number of submissions received: 197 • Number of submissions sent for review: 197 • Number of submissions accepted: 114 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 57,86% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 41 • Any additional info on review process: All papers had undergone plagiarism check (using Turnitin) and single-blind review by two reviewers • Contact person for queries: Name : Yuant Tiandho Affiliation : Department of Physics, Universitas Bangka Belitung Email : [email protected] / [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2022 ◽  
Vol 2148 (1) ◽  
pp. 011003
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Software Tool ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Technical Quality ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Initial Check

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) 1. ICPEM Editors perform an initial check of the manuscript’s suitability upon receipt, and use a software tool to finish the plagiarism analysis, manuscripts are out of conference topics will be rejected directly, generally, authors will receive the result within 3-5 working days in this round. 2. Only the manuscripts passed the initial checking can be submitted to reviewers, ICPEM Editorial Office will then organize the peer-review process performed by independent experts. Papers will be strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts and reviewers. 3. All regular papers are reviewed by at least two reviewers, but usually by three or more, and rated considering: Relevance, Originality, Technical Quality, Significance and Presentation of the submissions; There are four results: 1, Accept; 2, Accept after Minor Revisions; 3, Reconsider after Major Revisions; 4, Reject. 4. Authors have 2-3 weeks to make minor or major revisions after received the comments from reviewers. Usually, one round of major revisions is allowed. 5. Only the submission passed the peer review and accepted by reviewers will be included in the conference proceeding finally. • Conference submission management system: Online Email System • Number of submissions received: 141 • Number of submissions sent for review: 116 (25 papers out of the conference scope are rejected directly) • Number of submissions accepted: 69 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 49% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2-3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 164 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Name : Josh Sheng Affiliation: Hubei Zhongke Research Institute of Nature Science, China Email : [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 890 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Marine Science ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science has been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. The review processes were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind/Double-blind/Triple-blind/Open/Other (please describe) Double-blind: All papers came through the basic review which included an initial technical criteria check (paper field, structure of submission, adherence to the submission instructions, English language usage and the ethics of scientific writing including a check for the similarity rate). Any papers out of the scope or containing plagiarism were rejected directly. The initial technical criteria check by the editors. The accepted papers came through peer review process by two professional experts in the related subject area. After the peer review process was complete, the editors decide that the papers will be accepted for publication. • Conference submission management system: Email 2nd International Conference on Fisheries and Marine submission on https://unkhair.ac.id/ • Number of submissions received: 150 • Number of submissions sent for review: 88 • Number of submissions accepted: 73 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 48% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 35 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: [email protected] Dr. Najamuddin Department of Marine Science, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Khairun University, Indonesia

scholarly journals Peer review analysis in the field of radiation oncology: results from a web-based survey of the Young DEGRO working group

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas Käsmann ◽  
◽  
Annemarie Schröder ◽  
Benjamin Frey ◽  
Daniel F. Fleischmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Scientific Content ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Scientific Background

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the reviewing behaviour in the German-speaking countries in order to provide recommendations to increase the attractiveness of reviewing activity in the field of radiation oncology. Methods In November 2019, a survey was conducted by the Young DEGRO working group (jDEGRO) using the online platform “eSurveyCreator”. The questionnaire consisted of 29 items examining a broad range of factors that influence reviewing motivation and performance. Results A total of 281 responses were received. Of these, 154 (55%) were completed and included in the evaluation. The most important factors for journal selection criteria and peer review performance in the field of radiation oncology are the scientific background of the manuscript (85%), reputation of the journal (59%) and a high impact factor (IF; 40%). Reasons for declining an invitation to review include the scientific background of the article (60%), assumed effort (55%) and a low IF (27%). A double-blind review process is preferred by 70% of respondents to a single-blind (16%) or an open review process (14%). If compensation was offered, 59% of participants would review articles more often. Only 12% of the participants have received compensation for their reviewing activities so far. As compensation for the effort of reviewing, 55% of the respondents would prefer free access to the journal’s articles, 45% a discount for their own manuscripts, 40% reduced congress fees and 39% compensation for expenses. Conclusion The scientific content of the manuscript, reputation of the journal and a high IF determine the attractiveness for peer reviewing in the field of radiation oncology. The majority of participants prefer a double-blind peer review process and would conduct more reviews if compensation was available. Free access to journal articles, discounts for publication costs or congress fees, or an expense allowance were identified to increase attractiveness of the review process.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2104 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Content Review ◽  
Single Blind

All conference organizers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) The SNPF 2021 article review process was carried out using a single-blind review system. The number of papers submitted was 84 articles. The number of SNPF 2021 reviewers is 14 people. One reviewer reviewed one article. The review process was done via email and or OCS. The article review results were returned to the authors for revision within a certain period of time. The author sent the revised results, and the plagiarism checked results of the article. The editor then rechecked the revision result. If suitable, it would be forwarded to the editor, either for plagiarism, language, or template. • Conference submission management system: OCS (http://snpfmotogpe.ulm.ac.id/ocs/index.php/snpf/2021) • The number of submissions received: There were 84 articles submitted to SNPF 2021 • The number of submissions sent for review: There were 84 articles reviewed by reviewers of SNPF 2021. • The number of submissions accepted: There were 40 articles accepted for recommendation/publication to JPCS IOP Publishing. • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 47,61% • The average number of reviews per paper: One article was reviewed four times: content review 2x, language review 1x, and template review 1x. • The total number of reviewers involved: There were 14 reviewers (content review), 10 editors (content and template review), and 4 people (language review) • Any additional info on the review process: The author sent the revised article along with the similarity check (maximum 20%). A similarity check was also carried out using Turnitin (maximum 20%) when an article was declared fit for publication. So, the similarity check was done two times. • Contact person for queries: +628975586104 (Misbah) Universitas Lambung Mangkurat [email protected]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document