Over 7,400 survey respondents internationally.
Views from journal editors, authors and reviewers.
Six focus groups held in the UK, China and South Africa.
Data spanning the sciences, social sciences, humanities and medicine.
Just published, and launched at our UK editor round table in Oxford, is ‘Peer Review in 2015: a global view’, one of the largest research projects into peer review in recent years and our latest white paper.
What do researchers really think about the process of peer review, its timeframes and the realities of submission? How is the daily experience matching to expectations across disciplines? Do researchers still continue to value peer review, and how comfortable (or not) are they with different peer review models?
‘Peer review in 2015: a global view’ seeks to answer all this and more, gathering views from those who author research articles, those who review them, and you, the journal editors who oversee the process. Now available to read online, it offers a truly 360° perspective on the system which is commonly agreed to be an essential part of research publication, and includes findings from a global online survey as well as focus groups held in China, South Africa and the UK.
The research found agreement on the most important motivation to publish in peer reviewed journals: making a contribution to the field and sharing research with others was the top rated response across all groups (authors, reviewers and editors). 68% of researchers also believe they can have confidence in the academic rigour of published articles because of peer review, and most researchers rate the benefit of peer review towards improving their article as 8 or above out of 10 in the survey.
Examining the prevalence of ethical issues, the survey results run contrary to recent discussions, with respondents reporting a low prevalence of gender bias in peer review in their experience, but a higher prevalence of regional and seniority bias. Many also suggest that double blind peer review is most capable of preventing reviewer discrimination, and views when questioned onmore open models of review scores were surprisingly neutral. However, free text responses in the survey and in focus groups were much stronger and more polarized, a representative selection of which we have highlighted in the white paper.
Read ‘Peer review in 2015: a global view’ now, and discover the findings for yourself, at authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/peer-review-in-2015.