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

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.

scholarly journals Evaluating, Improving, and Appreciating Peer Review at IJTMB

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.

scholarly journals Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications

2018 ◽  
Vol 115 (12) ◽  
pp. 2952-2957 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth L. Pier ◽  
Markus Brauer ◽  
Amarette Filut ◽  
Anna Kaatz ◽  
Joshua Raclaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Funding Success ◽  
Numeric Rating

Obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly competitive, as funding success rates have declined over the past decade. To allocate relatively scarce funds, scientific peer reviewers must differentiate the very best applications from comparatively weaker ones. Despite the importance of this determination, little research has explored how reviewers assign ratings to the applications they review and whether there is consistency in the reviewers’ evaluation of the same application. Replicating all aspects of the NIH peer-review process, we examined 43 individual reviewers’ ratings and written critiques of the same group of 25 NIH grant applications. Results showed no agreement among reviewers regarding the quality of the applications in either their qualitative or quantitative evaluations. Although all reviewers received the same instructions on how to rate applications and format their written critiques, we also found no agreement in how reviewers “translated” a given number of strengths and weaknesses into a numeric rating. It appeared that the outcome of the grant review depended more on the reviewer to whom the grant was assigned than the research proposed in the grant. This research replicates the NIH peer-review process to examine in detail the qualitative and quantitative judgments of different reviewers examining the same application, and our results have broad relevance for scientific grant peer review.

scholarly journals Does Peer Review Identify the Best Papers? A Simulation Study of Editors, Reviewers, and the Scientific Publication Process

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (04) ◽  
pp. 963-969 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Esarey
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Computational Simulation ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Review System ◽  
Multiple Systems ◽  
Average Reader

ABSTRACTHow does the structure of the peer review process, which can vary among journals, influence the quality of papers published in a journal? This article studies multiple systems of peer review using computational simulation. I find that, under any of the systems I study, a majority of accepted papers are evaluated by an average reader as not meeting the standards of the journal. Moreover, all systems allow random chance to play a strong role in the acceptance decision. Heterogeneous reviewer and reader standards for scientific quality drive both results. A peer review system with an active editor—that is, one who uses desk rejection before review and does not rely strictly on reviewer votes to make decisions—can mitigate some of these effects.

scholarly journals Improving Submissions to Scholarly Journals via Peer Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-9
Author(s):  
Elena Tikhonova ◽  
Lilia Raitskaya
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Academic Reputation ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Language And Education

Due to their commitment to better publishing standards and desire to improve their journals’ academic reputation, editorial boards, editors, and editorial teams seek to refine submissions they receive. Though, the peer review process serves as a filtering and assessment system, it is believed to greatly contribute to better quality of scholarly journals. Based on the analysis of the peer review internationally, the JLE editors focus on the peer review in the Journal of Language and Education, sharing their experience with the JLE potential authors. The editorial contains some reflections on the efficacy of peer review in the JLE. Potential authors may find some tips as to how to interact with recommendations and criticism on part of their peer reviewers and to make their voices heard.

scholarly journals Peer Review of Datasets: When, Why, and How

2015 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew S. Mayernik ◽  
Sarah Callaghan ◽  
Roland Leigh ◽  
Jonathan Tedds ◽  
Steven Worley
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Central Place ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Data Repositories ◽  
Peer Reviews

Abstract Peer review holds a central place within the scientific communication system. Traditionally, research quality has been assessed by peer review of journal articles, conference proceedings, and books. There is strong support for the peer review process within the academic community, with scholars contributing peer reviews with little formal reward. Reviewing is seen as a contribution to the community as well as an opportunity to polish and refine understanding of the cutting edge of research. This paper discusses the applicability of the peer review process for assessing and ensuring the quality of datasets. Establishing the quality of datasets is a multifaceted task that encompasses many automated and manual processes. Adding research data into the publication and peer review queues will increase the stress on the scientific publishing system, but if done with forethought will also increase the trustworthiness and value of individual datasets, strengthen the findings based on cited datasets, and increase the transparency and traceability of data and publications. This paper discusses issues related to data peer review—in particular, the peer review processes, needs, and challenges related to the following scenarios: 1) data analyzed in traditional scientific articles, 2) data articles published in traditional scientific journals, 3) data submitted to open access data repositories, and 4) datasets published via articles in data journals.

scholarly journals Manuscripts Published in a Specific Chemistry Journal Must Be Both Important and Suitable According to Peer Reviewers

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-157
Author(s):  
Michelle DuBroy
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Decision Rules ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
International Edition ◽  
Year 2000

A Review of: Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). The manuscript reviewing process: empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review. Library & Information Science Research, 32(1), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2009.07.010 Abstract Objective – To examine the peer review process at a single journal. Design – Analysis of business records. Setting – Peer review system of a single journal. Subjects – Documents produced when reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication to journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition and reviewed in the year 2000. Methods – Peer review process information was extracted from the journal’s archives. Various aspects, such as review sequences and decision rules, were analysed and summarised in tables. Main results – Of the 1899 manuscripts reviewed in the year 2000, 46% (n = 878) were accepted for publication and 54% (n = 1021) were rejected. On average, a manuscript received 2.6 reviews before an editor made a publication decision. Just over half (n = 962, approx. 51%) of manuscripts were subject to two review steps. A small number of manuscripts (n = 104, approx. 5.5%) were subject to 5, 6 or 7 review steps. The more steps an article was subject to, the greater likelihood it would be accepted. Editors “generally follow a so-called clear-cut rule” (p.11) in which manuscripts accepted for publication must be considered both important and suitable for publication by at least two peer reviewers. Conclusion – The results “give a sense of commitment [and care] ...probably typical of most prestigious journals” (p.11).

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

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert McNair ◽  
Hai Anh Le Phuong ◽  
Levente Cseri ◽  
Gyorgy Szekely
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Early Career ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Survey Results ◽  
Number Of Publications

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.

scholarly journals The use of a guided peer review assessment for investigative interviewers of child witnesses

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja P. Brubacher ◽  
Martine B. Powell ◽  
Linda C. Steele ◽  
David Boud
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Child Witnesses ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Self Development ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Learning Data

Purpose Investigative interviewers assess their colleagues' interviews (‘peer review’) as a necessary part of their practice, and for their self-development. Yet, there is little guidance around what the process involves and how they might do it. Research suggests that effective peer review is supported by using guidance material. The goal of the present work was to describe the use of such a guide by a group of professionals who regularly conduct investigative interviews with children, to share what was learned with other professionals seeking to create a formalized peer review process. Design/methodology/approach Sixty US child witness interviewers completed a guided peer review assessment of an anonymous interview, as an assignment at the conclusion of an 18-hour training program that focused on developing their interviewing skills. They consented to the use of their learning data in research, and the research was approved by the university's research ethics board. Peer reviews were coded for the extent to which they used the guide to support their evaluations, and the overall quality of the review to assess the utility of the guide in supporting them to conduct effective assessments. Findings In general, the guide and instructions for providing feedback were moderately effective in supporting the peer assessments, but results suggested specific training in how to deliver peer review would be useful. Practical implications Through this process, the authors identified components that would be helpful to further increase the efficacy of peer review. Originality/value The aim of this work was to spark a greater conversation among practitioners and academics about professionalizing the peer review process and aiding interviewers to develop peer review tools that would support their continued growth. The authors conclude with five key tips for professionals that stem from the experiences creating and evaluating the guide in combination with existing literature and three areas for future investigation.

scholarly journals Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication and Scientific Publishing

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.

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

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 683 ◽  
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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document