September 19, 2016 |
Journals Development Coordinator
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 |
Senior Communications Manager (Author Relations)
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.
November 30, 2015 |
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.