The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.

1995 ◽  
Vol 165 (3) ◽  
pp. 685-688 ◽  
Author(s):  
J F Polak
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damian Pattinson

In recent years, funders have increased their support for early sharing of biomedical research through the use of preprints. For most, such as the COAlitionS group of funders (ASAPbio 2019) and the Gates foundation, this takes the form of active encouragement, while for others, it is mandated. But despite these motivations, few authors are routinely depositing their work as a preprint before submitting to a journal. Some journals have started offering authors the option of posting their work early at the point at which it is submitted for review. These include PLOS, who offer a link to BiorXiv, the Cell journals, who offer SSRN posting through ‘Sneak Peak’, and Nature Communications, who offer posting to any preprint and a link from the journal page called ‘Under Consideration’. Uptake has ranged from 3% for the Nature pilot, to 18% for PLOS (The Official Plos Blog 2018). In order to encourage more researchers to post their work early, we have been offering authors who submit to BMC Series titles the opportunity to post their work as a preprint on Research Square, a new platform that lets authors share and improve their research. To encourage participation, authors are offered a greater amount of control and transparency over the peer review process if they opt in. First, they are given a detailed peer review timeline which updates in real time every time an event occurs on their manuscript (reviewer invited, reviewer accepts etc). Second, they are encouraged to share their preprint with colleagues, who are able to post comments on the paper. These comments are sent to the editor when they are making their decision. Third, authors can suggest potential peer reviewers, recommendations which are also passed onto the editor to vet and invite. Together, these incentives have had a positive impact on authors choosing to post a preprint. Among the journals that offer this service, the average opt-in rate is 40%. This translates to over 3,000 manuscripts (as of July 2019) that have been posted to Research Square since the launch of the service in October 2018. In this talk I will demonstrate the functionality of Research Square, and provide demographic and discipline data on which areas are most and least likely to post.


Pharmacy ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-201
Author(s):  
Sheila Oh ◽  
Noel Lynch ◽  
Nora McCarthy ◽  
Tulin Cil ◽  
Elaine Lehane ◽  
...  

Coatings ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1117
Author(s):  

Following acceptance of the Special Issue article by the Guest Editor, El-Sayed Abd El-Aziz, concerns were raised regarding the integrity of the peer review process [...]


Author(s):  
Matteo Cavalleri

Publishing the results of one’s research is an integral part of the scientific process, yet scholarly journals are often seen as black boxes by researchers. What happens to a paper after it is submitted? Who is deciding on its fate? What is the role of the journal editor and the editorial office? How does the peer-review process work, and are its core principles still relevant in today’s changing publishing landscape? In this talk I will discuss these questions in an attempt to de-mystify the peer review process from an editor’s perspective, and cover the whats, the hows and the whys of peer review.


Bosniaca ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (25) ◽  
pp. 183
Author(s):  
Alexandru-Ionuţ Petrişor

The pressure to publish and get cited along with the extensive use of citation metrics in individual career promotion, research funding and university ranking have radically changed the research ecosystem during the last few decades, favoring the rise of predatory journals. This phenomenon has shaken the very backbone of the system, represented by the peer review process. The present article builds up upon the recommendation for reviewers, including the ethical ones, and articles expressing some concerns related to the peer review in order not to answer, but merely ask several questions that could serve as the start point for a reform of the system. Overall, the role of peer review is not at stakes, but its intricate mechanisms need to adapt to the challenges of the new environment.-------------------------------------------------Stručna recenzija pod etičkim povećalom: moguća pitanjaPritisak da se rad objavi i citira zajedno s velikom upotrebom citatskih metrika u individualnoj promociji karijere, financiranju istraživanja i rangiranju univerziteta radikalno su promijenili istraživački ekosistem tijekom posljednjih nekoliko desetljeća, pogodujući porastu grabežljivih časopisa. Ovaj fenomen je uzdrmao samu okosnicu sistema, predstavljenog postupkom stručne recenzije. Ovaj se članak temelji na preporuci za recenzente, uključujući etiku, te članci izražavaju zabrinutost koja se odnosi na recenziju, ne kako bi dali odgovor, već postavljajući samo nekoliko pitanja koja bi mogla poslužiti kao polazište za reformu sistema. Sveukupno, uloga stručne provjere nije na kocki, ali njeni zamršeni mehanizmi moraju se prilagoditi izazovima novog okruženja.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document