scholarly journals Author response: Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel G Hamilton ◽  
Hannah Fraser ◽  
Rink Hoekstra ◽  
Fiona Fidler
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Author Response ◽  
Journal Policies

scholarly journals Authors’ Response to Peer Reviews of “No Time to Waste: Real-World Repurposing of Generic Drugs as a Multifaceted Strategy Against COVID-19” (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moshe Rogosnitzky ◽  
Esther Berkowitz ◽  
Alejandro R Jadad
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Real World ◽  
Generic Drugs ◽  
Author Response ◽  
Peer Reviews

UNSTRUCTURED Author response to peer review for MS#19583

scholarly journals Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel George Hamilton ◽  
Hannah Fraser ◽  
Rink Hoekstra ◽  
Fiona Fidler
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
Raw Data ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Publishing Policy ◽  
Journal Policies

Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 journal editors of high-impact journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. Editors were asked for details about peer review policies and practices at their journals, as well as their views on five publication ethics issues. Key findings included: almost half of surveyed journals checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, adoption of “open” policies was uncommon and a fifth of editors reported that disagreement with a reviewer’s recommendation would be grounds for editing a report (with or without the reviewer’s permission). The majority of editors expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to raw data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their journals and replication studies. These results highlight differences in peer review policies across journals and provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role of peer review in scholarly publishing, and transparency in editorial and publishing policy.

scholarly journals Author response: Gender bias in scholarly peer review

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Helmer ◽  
Manuel Schottdorf ◽  
Andreas Neef ◽  
Demian Battaglia
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Author Response

scholarly journals Decision letter: Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liz Allen ◽  
Tony Ross-Hellauer ◽  
Peter Rodgers
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Journal Policies

scholarly journals Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary S. McDowell ◽  
John Knutsen ◽  
June Graham ◽  
Sarah K. Oelker ◽  
Rebeccah S. Lijek
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Editorial Staff ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Majority Opinion ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Journal Editorial ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Journal Policies

AbstractThe goal of this study is to shed light on the involvement of early career researchers (ECRs) during peer review of manuscripts for publication in journals. In particular, we sought to better understand how commonly ECRs contribute ideas and/or text to peer review reports when they are not the invited reviewer (“co-review”), and how commonly ECRs do not receive named credit to the journal editorial staff for these scholarly efforts (“ghostwrite”). First, we evaluated 1,952 publications in the peer-reviewed literature generated by exhaustive search terms that combined synonyms of “early career researcher” and “peer review” and found no previous studies about ECRs ghostwriting peer review reports. We then surveyed 498 researchers about their experiences with, and opinions about, co-reviewing and ghostwriting as ECRs. Three quarters of those surveyed have co-reviewed and most find it to be a beneficial (95% agree) and ethical (73% agree) form of training in peer review. Co-reviewing is the second most commonly reported form of training in peer review besides receiving reviews on one’s own papers. Half of survey respondents have ghostwritten a peer review report, despite the 4/5ths majority opinion that ghostwriting is unethical. Survey respondents report that the three major barriers to including co-reviewer names on peer review reports are: a lack of communication between PIs and ECRs; a false belief that co-authorship is for manuscripts but not peer review reports; and prohibitive journal policies that are out of alignment with current practice and opinions about best practice. We therefore propose recommendations for changing this status quo, to discourage unethical ghostwriting of peer review reports and encourage quality co-reviewing experiences as normal training in peer review.

scholarly journals Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts

eLife ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary S McDowell ◽  
John D Knutsen ◽  
June M Graham ◽  
Sarah K Oelker ◽  
Rebeccah S Lijek
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Journal Policies

Many early-career researchers are involved in the peer review of manuscripts for scientific journals, typically under the guidance of or jointly with their advisor, but most of the evidence about this activity is anecdotal. Here we report the results of a literature review and a survey of researchers, with an emphasis on co-reviewing and 'ghostwriting'. The literature review identified 36 articles that addressed the involvement of early-career researchers in peer review, most of them about early-career researchers and their advisors co-reviewing manuscripts for the purposes of training: none of them addressed the topic of ghostwriting in detail. About three quarters of the respondents to the survey had co-reviewed a manuscript. Most respondents believe co-reviewing to be a beneficial (95%) and ethical (73%) form of training in peer review. About half of the respondents have ghostwritten a peer review report, despite 81% responding that ghostwriting is unethical and 82% agreeing that identifying co-reviewers to the journal is valuable. Peer review would benefit from changes in both journal policies and lab practices that encourage mentored co-review and discourage ghostwriting.

scholarly journals Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

eLife ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel G Hamilton ◽  
Hannah Fraser ◽  
Rink Hoekstra ◽  
Fiona Fidler
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Official Policy ◽  
Journal Policies ◽  
Access To Data

Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 editors of journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. We found that 49% of the journals surveyed checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, that 61% allowed authors to recommend both for and against specific reviewers, and that less than 6% used a form of open peer review. Most journals did not have an official policy on altering reports from reviewers, but 91% of editors identified at least one situation in which it was appropriate for an editor to alter a report. Editors were also asked for their views on five issues related to publication ethics. A majority expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their own journals, and replication studies. Our results provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role and transparency of peer review in scholarly publishing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document