Articles tagged with: Peer review

July 10, 2017 | Tom Murden Electronic Editorial Systems Coordinator

Introducing the new user interface from ScholarOne Manuscripts

From the 10th July, ScholarOne Manuscripts (S1M) will be rolling out their new release – v4.21. The sole feature of this release is centred around the new User interface (UI) that reviewers will use. We are keen to provide our editors with some insight into this new element of your S1M sites before you see the change across the system:

S1M has described this improvement as ‘new and cleaner’.…
June 22, 2017 | Leila Jones Publishing Manager - Journal Development

Reviewer guidelines and best practice

At Taylor & Francis we understand the importance of an effective review when authors choose to submit their research to one of our journals. We work to establish and sustain peer-review integrity on every journal and a vital part of this means ensuring that reviewers have the appropriate resources to carry out their work as efficiently and effectively as possible. The reviewing process varies from journal to journal, but this guide serves as an overview of what’s involved when becoming a reviewer with a Taylor & Francis journal.
June 20, 2017 | Lan Murdock, Communications Manager

Top takeaways from 2017 Council of Science Editor Annual Meeting

It was a great learning experience for me to attend the 60th anniversary meeting of the Council of Science Editors(CSE) last month. The theme this year was ‘Setting Sail: Navigating the Future of Science Publishing’, looking at the challenges facing science editors during times of great changes in scientific publishing. The two-day program was packed with interesting sessions from peer review innovation to implementation of data policy and new industry standards.
May 12, 2017 | Victoria Farrimond Journals Development Coordinator

Turning around turnaround times: peer review timeline strategy

It goes without saying that the peer review process is essential in ensuring the quality of published work; however, it can be a timely system that can often frustrate authors that are awaiting a decision, while editors face the prospect of delayed publication of their journal.…

May 5, 2017 | Claire Doffegnies, Communications Executive

Creating a clear peer review picture: announcing Peer Review Week 2017

Peer review is a crucial part of scholarly communication, ensuring that published research is trustworthy, accurate, and meets the highest standards possible within a given field. That’s why this year we’ll once again be supporting Peer Review Week, running from 11th to 17th September. Get the date in your diary, and find out how you can get involved.
April 19, 2017 | Claire Doffegnies, Communications Executive

Recognizing reviewers

At Taylor & Francis, we recognize that peer reviewers play an integral role in journal publication. Reviewers invest a huge amount of their time and knowledge in the peer-review process, and as such, we think it’s important to say “thanks.” Read on to find out what we have put in place to show our appreciation …
April 11, 2017 | Daniel Johnston Cofounder of Publons

Publons: the importance of recognition in peer review

Daniel JohnstonLast week we revealed details of the new partnership between Taylor & Francis and the online platform Publons, an initiative developed to help reviewers get verified recognition for their contributions. The scheme was cofounded by Andrew Preston and Daniel Johnston with the aim to speed up research by improving peer review.…

April 5, 2017 | Claire Doffegnies, Communications Executive

Recognizing reviewers in a new way: a Publons trial

publonsThe peer review process is vital to the strength of a journal, evaluating the quality, validity, and relevance of scholarly research. As Mike J. Smith, Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Maps comments, “reviewers are the lifeblood of any journal”, investing a huge amount of time and expertise in the process.…

February 15, 2017 | Tom Murden, Editorial Systems Coordinator

Editorial Manager update: template letters for reviewers

More options when inviting reviewers beyond original submissions

Editorial Manager will soon be releasing their new version (13.1) - and with it there are a number of new features. One of these features is of particularly relevant to how editors will conduct the peer-review process, namely the ability to choose from more than one default letter when inviting reviewers to review a manuscript.…

February 10, 2017 | Victoria Farrimond Journals Development Coordinator

Book discount for editors, board members and reviewers

We are pleased to offer all our editors, board members, and reviewers a discount on their purchase of Taylor & Francis Group books (including those under the Routledge, CRC Press, Garland Science, Psychology Press, and Focal Press imprints).
December 16, 2016 | Lucy Francis Editorial Office Team Leader

The Peer Review Systems Helpdesk

The process of peer review via an online submission system such as ScholarOne Manuscripts or Editorial Manager often generates queries, and you may not always be able to answer these yourself. Taylor & Francis have a dedicated Peer Review Systems (PRS) Helpdesk to help you.
November 22, 2016 | Anna Walton Editorial Systems Coordinator

Making the most of your reviewer list

Using your peer review submission system to help you keep your reviewer list up to date

When examining improvement and development opportunities for your journal, editors should aim to enhance and augment the review process. Many editors would agree that the most difficult element of peer review is finding reviewers who are willing and able to evaluate a paper within a few weeks; yet this is such an integral slice of the journal’s day to day running, as it helps to improve both the speed and quality of the peer review process.…

September 20, 2016 | Lucy Francis Editorial Office Team Leader

Meet the Taylor & Francis in-house peer review team

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.
September 19, 2016 | Claire Doffegnies Journals Development Coordinator

Peer review in pictures: opening up the black box

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.
July 11, 2016 | Elaine Devine Senior Communications Manager (Author Relations)

Motivations, training and support in peer review

Read the latest research in ‘Peer review: a global view’

What motivates researchers to peer review, or to publish in peer reviewed journals? What training would researchers like to access before accepting an invitation to review? Read the 10 key findings from our latest research into peer review and find out what authors, reviewers and fellow journal editors really think motivates researchers to publish and review.
July 5, 2016 | Anna Walton, Editorial Systems Coordinator

Release news – ScholarOne 4.19

There has recently been a new ScholarOne release which has updated the look of the ScholarOne home page and menu, as well as the author dashboard and submission interface.
June 27, 2016 | Joanne Thomas, Projects and Events Coordinator and Emily Jesper, Head of Partnerships and Governance, Sense about Science

Supporting early career researchers

Q&A with Sense about Science

In this virtual Q&A, get to know Sense about Science. What do they get asked the most about peer review? How do they think journal editors can benefit from involving early career researchers in the peer review process? And what are the challenges for ECRs getting involved? Joanne Thomas and Emily Jesper from Sense about Science discuss all this and more.
June 6, 2016 | Gareth Meager Editorial Systems Manager

DMARC email sending policy and how this affects your journal

Changes to email ‘from’ addresses in peer review systems

The peer review systems widely used at Taylor & Francis - both Editorial Manager and ScholarOne Manuscripts – typically operate by sending emails and alerts from the system as if sent by a named user, where the from address and the details do not match. This is known as ‘spoofing’. In legitimate use, spoofing acts as a good way to send emails from within an organization’s server (in this case the peer review systems) but appear to the outside world to be from another person. The ‘from’ address may appear as “” even though the actual domain of the sending server is something else, such as “”. This is the core of DMARC policy, and email providers are now checking to make sure these two domains (the ‘from’ address and the sending server) match so that spammers are not able to ‘spoof’ genuine email as a means to appear more trustworthy.
February 19, 2016 | Claire Doffegnies, Journals Development Coordinator & Lynsey Haire, Head of Electronic Editorial Systems

Finding reviewers is now faster and simpler

At Taylor & Francis, we are always working hard to develop our electronic peer-review systems to improve and enhance the quality of peer review, and to help make submission and peer-review management simpler, smoother, and more straightforward for journal editors, authors, and reviewers. Read on to find out more about the recent changes we have made, why, and how to get the most out of the latest developments to your electronic peer-review system.
February 2, 2016 | Luke Peedell, Peer Review Coordinator

Ethical considerations when assigning independent reviewers

As a fundamental step of the peer review process, it is essential for editors to select appropriate reviewers for each manuscript. Ideally, chosen reviewers will be experts in their field and have significant area-specific knowledge on the manuscript’s topic, but why do editors also need to consider the ethics behind their choice of reviewer?
December 10, 2015 | Professor Jacqueline Stevenson Head of Research, Sheffield Institute of Education, Sheffield Hallam University

The importance of training in peer review

I have been peer-reviewing academic papers for journals for more than a decade. I pride myself on being a reliable and supportive reviewer: I take time to read and make notes on any paper I am reviewing and then write a review which will, I hope, be comprehensive enough to offer the author requisite advice.…

November 30, 2015 | Elaine Devine Communications Manager

Ethics in peer review – the reality for researchers

Ethical issues in peer review, whether gender bias, competitor delays, seniority bias, false identities, review ‘rings’, or a number of other issues, have gained much coverage in the media, on social media and on blog sites in the last twelve months. But are ethical issues in peer review as widespread as they seem? We asked researchers from across the sciences, social sciences, humanities and medicine, who had experience of publishing in a number of peer reviewed journals (with both Taylor & Francis and other publishers), to tell us about their perception of the prevalence of ethical issues in peer review.
November 16, 2015 | Amanda Ashworth Publisher

Veto on the use of null hypothesis testing and p intervals: right or wrong?

It’s a brave editor who takes a decision to change accepted practice for submissions and peer review, particularly when he knows that his reasoning is controversial, that there are strong opposing views, and that the reaction from the scholarly community is likely to be highly polarized – and very vocal. But that didn’t stop Dr. David Trafimow, editor of Basic and Applied Social Psychology, from announcing in an editorial in the first issue of 2015 that the journal will cease accepting papers that relied on certain statistical methods – especially the null hypothesis significance testing procedure – with immediate effect. Because of the huge amount of attention the editorial has received, we’ve invited Dr. Trafimow and respected colleagues to reflect on the reaction to his editorial and what the ban may mean for future scholarly research.
October 27, 2015 | Elaine Devine Communications Manager, Taylor & Francis

Taking peer review’s pulse: read ‘Peer review in 2015: a global view’

The view from journal authors, reviewers and editors on peer review

What do journal authors, reviewers and editors think of the system still very much at the heart of scholarly communication? Read one of the largest research studies into peer review in recent years, as we launch ‘Peer review in 2015: a global view’.
September 25, 2015 | Helen Talbot, Editorial Systems Coordinator

Editorial Manager: free reporting webinar

Spaces are still available on Aries’ Enterprise Analytics Reporting (EAR) Webinar on September 30. Sign up to this free event and learn how to use this powerful tool to enhance the management of your journal.
September 7, 2015 | Leila Jones Publishing Manager – Journal Development

What to remember when writing a review

Our popular reviewer guidelines were created to support our valued peer reviewers and ensure they have all the information they need to write an effective review. Drawing on these and other scholars’ ideas, we’ve come up with some of the most important things to remember when writing a review of a journal submission. Whether you are a seasoned reviewer, or just getting started, we hope you find these guidelines and suggestions helpful.
July 6, 2015 | Tamara Bowler Peer Review Coordinator

Required reviewers – customizing for the exception, not the rule

Inspired by frequently asked questions from editors, our dedicated EES (Electronic Editorial Systems) team share their top tips on getting the best out of your peer review management system. In this post, how do you change the minimal number of reviewers necessary to complete the review stage of a manuscript? Read on.
June 18, 2015 | Siobhán Aldridge Editorial Systems Coordinator

Special tips for a special issue

Inspired by frequently asked questions from editors, our dedicated EES (Electronic Editorial Systems) team share their top tips on getting the best out of your peer review management system. In this post, we give you some special tips for publishing a special issue. Don't miss them - read on.
May 18, 2015 | Claire Doffegnies Journals Development Coordinator

Top 5 tips on peer review

Peer Review is one of the most discussed topics in scholarly publishing. Despite the concerns and criticisms of the system, peer review is still a crucial part of academic communication and relies on the trust and cooperation of everyone involved to make it work effectively.…

May 18, 2015 | Elaine Devine, Communications Manager (Author Relations)

Spread the (peer review) word

There’s still time to apply for Sense About Science’s workshop

Simple advice and guidance on peer review is essential for every researcher, and that’s why we’re continuing to support Sense About Science’s free peer review workshops, the first of which (for 2015) is being held in central London on Friday 29 May. Tell your early career researcher friends and colleagues there’s still time to apply, all they need to do is send a CV and covering letter by Friday 22 May.
May 18, 2015 | Gareth Meager Editorial Systems Manager

Reminding reviewers – how to get the best response

Inspired by frequently asked questions from editors, our dedicated EES (Electronic Editorial Systems) team share their top tips on getting the best out of your peer review management system. In this post, how do you remind reviewers to complete their report once they have agreed to review? Read on.
May 6, 2015 | Lucy Francis External Peer Review Supervisor

What to do when there is an ethical issue

Inspired by frequently asked questions from editors, our dedicated EES (Electronic Editorial Systems) team share their top tips on getting the best out of your peer review management system. In this post, what do you do if you suspect, or are notified of, a potential ethical issue regarding a manuscript in peer review? Read on.
March 9, 2015 | Peter Gilroy Editor of the Journal of Education for Teaching

Seven tips for recruiting and retaining referees

The steps one editor takes to maintain a good reviewer panel

I had no idea as an author of the difficulties that editors have in recruiting and retaining referees. That innocent phase ended once I began editing a journal, and had to identify and then negotiate with referees directly. My experience as a reviewer meant I wanted to work with referees in a different way. These are the steps I take to ensure we rarely have tardy or non-responsive referees.
February 11, 2015 | Professor Elliot Shubert Editor-in-Chief, Systematics and Biodiversity

What I wish I’d known when I first started editing a journal

How teamwork and an online submission system helped one editor

Taking over a journal can be challenging but there are saving factors, including online submission systems. Discover how simple changes helped one editor, and how being an editor isn’t a “one-man show.”
February 11, 2015 | James Hardcastle Research Manager

Citations, self-citations, and citation stacking

We have covered the diverse range of citation metrics in previous posts and although their number continues to grow, the Impact Factor is still the most important. Despite increasing concerns about how the Impact Factor is being used, far beyond its main purpose to evaluate citation profiles of journals, it is a key metric on which authors choose journals and often editors want to ensure theirs is as high as possible.
January 26, 2015 | Victoria Murphy Programme Manager at Sense About Science

Why peer review matters when asking for evidence

Since Sense About Science was set up in 2002, we have been working to popularize an understanding of peer review amongst policy makers, journalists, social influencers, and civic organizations. Peer review may not be a perfect system, but asking if something is peer-reviewed is a good first question in helping people distinguish between science and opinion.
January 14, 2015 | Jade Louch Editorial Systems Coordinator

ScholarOne Manuscripts Optima

ScholarOne Manuscripts Optima is a feature available across all Taylor & Francis and Routledge ScholarOne sites. It integrates elements of ScholarOne Manuscripts with Web of ScienceTM and EndNote from Thomson Reuters to give a range of features to help make the lives of authors, editors, and reviewers easier when using the system.
January 14, 2015 | Elaine Devine, Communications Manager (Author Relations)

Supporting authors, reviewers, and editors through peer review: essential resources

Peer review plays an integral role in helping to ensure published research is accurate, trustworthy, and meets the highest standards of research within a given field. It’s an essential part of the publication process for many journals but navigating peer review can seem like a minefield, whether you are a journal editor, someone who reviews papers, or the author.
December 19, 2014 | Lynn Degele Editorial Systems Co-Ordinator

Exporting to production webinars

Our new webinars walk you through completing the necessary steps to export accepted papers to Production from your ScholarOne Manuscripts site.
November 27, 2014 | Leila Jones Publishing Manager – Journal Development

Voice of Young Science interview with Victoria Murphy

Supported by Taylor & Francis, Sense About Science’s Voice of Young Science (VoYS) “Peer review: the nuts and bolts” workshops run each year in various locations across the U.K. and are streamed via Google Hangout. We joined some early-career researchers for one of these workshops at the beautiful University of St. Andrews in Fife at the end of November. Leila Jones caught up with Victoria Murphy, Programme Manager at Sense About Science.
November 26, 2014 | Gareth Meager Editorial Systems Manager

“Set my search preferences” on ScholarOne Manuscripts

How to save your search preferences for future use

Searching for and selecting reviewers is a crucial part of the editorial process and using the tools at your disposal within your ScholarOne submission site can make it a much more productive and time-saving process. The “Set my search preferences” option is available at the “select reviewer” step of the workflow and is a way to predetermine and save your own preferences for how you want the search results to be displayed.
November 10, 2014 | Gary McCulloch Editor of British Journal of Educational Studies

What I wish I’d known when I first started editing a journal

Referee reports and how to tackle the classic ‘yes-no-maybe’

It’s common for two academics in the same area of study to have completely different views of the same article. It is not unusual for one to say that a particular article should be published as it stands, while another is emphatic that it should not be published under any circumstances. Read on to find out about Gary McCulloch’s own experience of contradictory feedback as an author and tips for what editors can do in this situation.
November 5, 2014 | Duncan Nicholas

Highlights from the ISMTE annual conference

Duncan Nicholas reports on the event

ISMTE, the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors, connects the community of editorial office professionals committed to the peer review and publication of academic and scholarly journals. The organisation provides peer-to-peer networking, education and training, research and resources for best practice, and development of journal policy. This October was the 7th annual meeting of the ISMTE, held at Charles Darwin House, London. Read on to discover more about some of the key discussions.