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 or support would researchers like to access before accepting an invitation to review? In 2015, Taylor & Francis asked researchers from around the world to take part in research which aimed to explore what the experience of peer review was like for those involved with it on a regular basis.

The newly released Peer review: a global view is the latest supplement to this research. Focusing on motivations, training and support in peer review, it brings together opinions from over 6,300 researchers, and is one of the largest research studies into peer review in recent years.

10 key findings

  1. Making a contribution to the field and sharing results are the most important motivations for submitting to peer-reviewed journals.
  2. Most reviewers had reviewed up to 50 academic papers to date, with 46% of Science, Technology and Medical (STM) researchers reviewing between 10 and 50, and 49% of those in the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) doing the same.
  3. Playing their part as a member of the academic community, reciprocating the benefit, and improving papers are the most important reasons for agreeing to peer review for both STM and HSS researchers.
  4. Most people received their first invitation to review through the journal editor or an editorial board member.
  5. The factor that would incentivize people most to review is receiving free access to the journal.
  6. Over two thirds of authors who have never peer reviewed would like to.
  7. Yet 60% of editors have difficulty in finding qualified reviewers.
  8. 64% of authors in HSS and 63% in STM who are yet to review a paper would like formal training.
  9. 66% of reviewers in HSS and 64% in STM rate their confidence in reviewing a paper as 8 or above out of 10.
  10. Editorial board members (HSS) and Web of Science (STM) are the most used means of finding reviewers.

Start reading the supplement now, including survey data and questions, and a video snapshot of the findings (which you can also watch above) on our Author Services website.

What do you think of the findings, and how do they match to your experience as a journal editor? Tell us about it on #tfPeerReview.

Published: July 11, 2016 | Author: Elaine Devine, Senior Communications Manager (Author Relations) | Category: Front page, News and ideas, Peer review | Tagged with: