scholarly journals Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Severin ◽  
Joanna Chataway
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
Topic Guide ◽  
Stakeholder Expectations ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Decision Making Tool

Background: Depending upon their relationship with the process, stakeholders might have diverging or even conflicting expectations about the functions that peer review should fulfil. We aimed to explore how different stakeholder groups across academic disciplines perceive peer review and what they expect from it. Methods: We conducted qualitative focus group workshops with early-, mid- and senior career scholars, reviewers, editors and publishers. We recruited participants following a purposive maximum variation sampling approach and used a semi-structured topic guide to moderate discussions. To identify purposes of peer review, we conducted a thematic analysis. Results: Stakeholders expected peer review (i) to assess the contributions of a manuscript, (ii) to conduct quality control, (iii) to improve manuscripts, (iv) to assess the suitability of manuscripts for a journals and its readership, (v) to provide a decision-making tool for editors, (vi) to provide feedback by peers, (vii) to curate a community and (viii) to provide a seal of accreditation for published articles. Stakeholder groups with different roles and tasks in the peer review process differed in their understanding of and the value they attached to different functions of peer review. Some stakeholder expectations are contradictory, revealing a tension between formative functions and summative functions of peer review. Conclusions: Stakeholder expectations towards peer review are profoundly shaped by how stakeholders perceive their own roles both in relation to the peer review process and within their scientific community.

scholarly journals Reforming Science Publishing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled Moustafa
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Publishing Industry ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
The Past ◽  
Open Access Journals

Over the past few years, different changes have been introduced into the science publishing industry. However, important reforms are still required at both the content and form levels. First, the peer review process needs to be open, fair and transparent. Second, author-paid fees in open access journals need to either be removed or reconsidered toward more affordability. Third, the categorization of papers should include all types of scientific contributions that can be of higher interest to the scientific community than many mere quantitative and observable measures, or simply removed from publications. Forth, word counts and reference numbers in online open access journal should be nuanced or replaced by recommended ranges rather than to be a proxy of acceptance or rejection. Finally, all the coauthors of a manuscript should be considered corresponding authors and responsible for their mutual manuscript rather than only one or two.

scholarly journals A modest proposal to the peer review process: a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach in the assessment of scholarly communication

2021 ◽  
pp. 174701612110512
Author(s):  
August John Hoffman
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Interdisciplinary Communication ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
Communication Process ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
Scientific Rigor ◽  
Modest Proposal ◽  
Number Of Individuals

The purpose of the traditional peer review process (TPR) is to provide a more constructive and scientifically rigorous critical review of scholarly research that builds scientific rigor and validity within diverse academic disciplines. Peer review has received criticism as the demand for publications in a variety of competitive journals has significantly increased while the number of individuals who are both willing and qualified to conduct thorough reviews is significantly declining. The purpose of this topic piece is to examine the overall efficacy of the peer review process and provide recommendations toward a more collaborative, transparent (i.e. “open”), and interdisciplinary communication process.

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.

HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER

2003 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 47-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dale J. Benos ◽  
Kevin L. Kirk ◽  
John E. Hall
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Formal Training ◽  
Manuscript Review

Most scientists acquire their training in manuscript review not through instruction but by actually doing it. Formal training in manuscript analysis is rarely, if ever, provided. Editors usually choose reviewers because of expertise in a given subject area and availability. If an individual repeatedly submits bad reviews, it is likely that that person will not be asked to review a manuscript again. Being invited to review a manuscript is an honor, not only because you are being recognized for your eminence in a particular area of research but also because of the responsibility and service you provide to the journal and scientific community. The purpose of this article is to define how best to peer review an article. We will stipulate several principles of peer review and discuss some of the main elements of a good manuscript review, the basic responsibilities of a reviewer, and the rewards and responsibilities that accompany this process. Proper reviewer conduct is essential for making the peer review process valuable and the journal trustworthy.

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.

Getting Involved in the Peer Review Process

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenya Malcolm ◽  
Allison Groenendyk ◽  
Mary Cwik ◽  
Alisa Beyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

Reference Conundrum: The Broad Definition of Peer-Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Fullerton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
The Core ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Reference Interactions ◽  
Definition Of

For years, the gold-standard in academic publishing has been the peer-review process, and for the most part, peer-review remains a safeguard to authors publishing intentionally biased, misleading, and inaccurate information. Its purpose is to hold researchers accountable to the publishing standards of that field, including proper methodology, accurate literature reviews, etc. This presentation will establish the core tenants of peer-review, discuss if certain types of publications should be able to qualify as such, offer possible solutions, and discuss how this affects a librarian's reference interactions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document