The term ‘black box’ often comes up in the discussion around peer review. It seems that sometimes, it isn’t always clear to authors who and what exactly is involved in the process, and how much work it actually takes. Our recent white paper, Peer review: a global view, showed a discrepancy between researchers’ expectation and the reality of how long it takes to review a paper, which may be a symptom of this. So, we’ve put together a handy graphic to shed light on the steps involved in the process – help us open up the black box and share this with the researchers publishing in your journal.Read more...
September 23, 2016 |
Papers reporting quantitative research may be drawing on a wide variety of data, from temperature readings to survey responses. It is important for the reviewer to judge, to the best of their abilities, if the data are reported accurately and if they support the conclusions drawn.Read more...
September 22, 2016 |
Did you catch our peer review chat on Twitter? Our panel of editors joined us from Argentina, Puerto Rico and the UK, taking a rare opportunity to share peer review expertise across regions and disciplines. And joining us from the Taylor & Francis team who manage the systems that facilitate peer review on our journals, we had Gareth and Lucy offering up valuable advice. Our Storify of the event contains peer review tips and insights for editors, reviewers and authors.Read more...
September 22, 2016 |
Imogen Clarke ,
Journal Development Editor
Clinical trials describe the methodology, implementation and results of controlled studies, usually undertaken with large patient groups. These trials are used to test whether a treatment is safe and effective, and their accurate reporting is essential to clinical research and practice. The reviewer plays a crucial role in the process, ensuring that published articles contain reliable and ethically sound research and analysis.Read more...
September 20, 2016 |
Editorial Electronic Systems
Part of the wider Taylor & Francis Electronic Editorial Systems department, the In-House Peer Review (IHPR) team are a group of experts responsible for matters surrounding peer review. What are the team responsible for? How do they support titles across the business? What is CrossRef Similarity Check software, and how do the team use it to check papers for ethical issues? In this post, Lucy Francis, Editorial Office Team Leader, tells us more about the IHPR team, shedding light on how they support journals through the peer review process.Read more...