Dataset Information

Editors' perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Despite dealing with scientific output and potentially having an impact on the quality of research published, the manuscript peer-review process itself has at times been criticised for being 'unscientific'. Research indicates that there are social and subjective dimensions of the peer-review process that contribute to this perception, including how key stakeholders-namely authors, editors and peer reviewers-communicate. In particular, it has been suggested that the expected roles and tasks of stakeholders need to be more clearly defined and communicated if the manuscript review process is to be improved. Disentangling current communication practices, and outlining the specific roles and tasks of the main actors, might be a first step towards establishing the design of interventions that counterbalance social influences on the peer-review process.The purpose of this article is to present a methodological design for a qualitative study exploring the communication practices within the manuscript review process of biomedical journals from the journal editors' point of view. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Semi-structured interviews will be carried out with editors of biomedical journals between October 2017 and February 2018. A heterogeneous sample of participants representing a wide range of biomedical journals will be sought through purposive maximum variation sampling, drawing from a professional network of contacts, publishers, conference participants and snowballing.Interviews will be thematically analysed following the method outlined by Braun and Clarke. The qualitative data analysis software NVivo V.11 will be used to aid data management and analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This research project was evaluated and approved by the University of Split, Medical School Ethics Committee (2181-198-03-04-17-0029) in May 2017. Findings will be disseminated through a publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations during conferences.

SUBMITTER: Glonti K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6196803 | biostudies-other | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Editors' perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study.

Glonti Ketevan K Hren Darko D

BMJ open 20181018 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>Despite dealing with scientific output and potentially having an impact on the quality of research published, the manuscript peer-review process itself has at times been criticised for being 'unscientific'. Research indicates that there are social and subjective dimensions of the peer-review process that contribute to this perception, including how key stakeholders-namely authors, editors and peer reviewers-communicate. In particular, it has been suggested that the expected ...[more]

PMID: 30341111

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although peer reviewers play a key role in the manuscript review process, their roles and tasks are poorly defined. Clarity around this issue is important as it may influence the quality of peer reviewer reports. This scoping review explored the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of biomedical journals. METHODS:Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Educational Resources Information Center, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science from inception up to May 2017. There were no date and language restrictions. We also searched for grey literature. Studies with statements mentioning roles, tasks and competencies pertaining to the role of peer reviewers in biomedical journals were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently performed study screening and selection. Relevant statements were extracted, collated and classified into themes. RESULTS:After screening 2763 citations and 600 full-text papers, 209 articles and 13 grey literature sources were included. A total of 1426 statements related to roles were extracted, resulting in 76 unique statements. These were grouped into 13 emergent themes: proficient experts in their field (3 items), dutiful/altruistic towards scientific community (7 items), familiar with journal (2 items), unbiased and ethical professionals (18 items), self-critical professionals (4 items), reliable professionals (7 items), skilled critics (15 items), respectful communicators (6 items), gatekeepers (2 items), educators (2 items), advocates for author/editor/reader (3 items) and advisors to editors (2 items). Roles that do not fall within the remit of peer reviewers were also identified (5 items). We also extracted 2026 statements related to peer reviewers' tasks, resulting in 73 unique statements. These were grouped under six themes: organisation and approach to reviewing (10 items), make general comments (10 items), assess and address content for each section of the manuscript (36 items), address ethical aspects (5 items), assess manuscript presentation (8 items) and provide recommendations (4 items). CONCLUSIONS:Peer reviewers are expected to perform a large number of roles and tasks for biomedical journals. These warrant further discussion and clarification in order not to overburden these key actors.

Project description:The field of law has retained its distinctiveness regarding peer review to this day, and reviews are often conducted without following standardized rules and principles. External and independent evaluation of submissions has recently become adopted by European law journals, and peer review procedures are still poorly defined, investigated, and attuned to the legal science publishing landscape. The aim of our study was to gain a better insight into current editorial policies on peer review in law journals by exploring editorial documents (instructions, guidelines, policies) issued by 119 Croatian, Italian, and Spanish law journals. We relied on automatic content analysis of 135 publicly available documents collected from the journal websites to analyze the basic features of the peer review processes, manuscript evaluation criteria, and related ethical issues using WordStat8. Differences in covered topics between the countries were compared using the chi-square test. Our findings reveal that most law journals have adopted a traditional approach, in which the editorial board manages mostly anonymized peer review (104, 77%) engaging independent/external reviewers (65, 48%). Submissions are evaluated according to their originality and relevance (113, 84%), quality of writing and presentation (94, 70%), comprehensiveness of literature references (93, 69%), and adequacy of methods (57, 42%). The main ethical issues related to peer review addressed by these journals are reviewer's competing interests (42, 31%), plagiarism (35, 26%), and biases (30, 22%). We observed statistically significant differences between countries in mentioning key concepts such as "Peer review ethics", "Reviewer", "Transparency of identities", "Publication type", and "Research misconduct". Spanish journals favor reviewers' "Independence" and "Competence" and "Anonymized" peer review process. Also, some manuscript types popular in one country are rarely mentioned in other countries. Even though peer review is equally conventional in all three countries, high transparency in Croatian law journals, respect for research integrity in Spanish ones, and diversity and inclusion in Italian are promising indicators of future development.

Project description:BackgroundPredatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved.ObjectiveOur objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory.MethodsPotential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited.ResultsA total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall's list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future.ConclusionsAuthors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors' increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.

Project description:ObjectiveWe undertook this investigation to characterize conflict of interest (COI) policies of biomedical journals with respect to authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, and to ascertain what information about COI disclosures is publicly available.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of 135 editors of peer-reviewed biomedical journals that publish original research. We chose an international selection of general and specialty medical journals that publish in English. Selection was based on journal impact factor, and the recommendations of experts in the field. We developed and pilot tested a 3-part web-based survey. The survey included questions about the presence of specific policies for authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, specific restrictions on authors, peer-reviewers, and editors based on COI, and the public availability of these disclosures. Editors were contacted a minimum of 3 times.ResultsThe response rate for the survey was 91 (67%) of 135, and 85 (93%) of 91 journals reported having an author COI policy. Ten (11%) journals reported that they restrict author submissions based on COI (e.g., drug company authors' papers on their products are not accepted). While 77% report collecting COI information on all author submissions, only 57% publish all author disclosures. A minority of journals report having a specific policy on peer-reviewer 46% (42/91) or editor COI 40% (36/91); among these, 25% and 31% of journals state that they require recusal of peer-reviewers and editors if they report a COI. Only 3% of respondents publish COI disclosures of peer-reviewers, and 12% publish editor COI disclosures, while 11% and 24%, respectively, reported that this information is available upon request.ConclusionMany more journals have a policy regarding COI for authors than they do for peer-reviewers or editors. Even author COI policies are variable, depending on the type of manuscript submitted. The COI information that is collected by journals is often not published; the extent to which such "secret disclosure" may impact the integrity of the journal or the published work is not known.

Dataset Information

Editors' perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study.

Publications

Editors' perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets