IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/metaar/qkjy4_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

Author

Listed:
  • Hamilton, Daniel George

    (Epworth Healthcare)

  • Fraser, Hannah

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Hoekstra, Rink
  • Fidler, Fiona

    (University of Melbourne)

Abstract

Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 journal editors of high-impact journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. Editors were asked for details about peer review policies and practices at their journals, as well as their views on five publication ethics issues. Key findings included: almost half of surveyed journals checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, adoption of “open” policies was uncommon and a fifth of editors reported that disagreement with a reviewer’s recommendation would be grounds for editing a report (with or without the reviewer’s permission). The majority of editors expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to raw data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their journals and replication studies. These results highlight differences in peer review policies across journals and provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role of peer review in scholarly publishing, and transparency in editorial and publishing policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Hamilton, Daniel George & Fraser, Hannah & Hoekstra, Rink & Fidler, Fiona, 2020. "Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review," MetaArXiv qkjy4_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:metaar:qkjy4_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/qkjy4_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5f2b5c4e5f705a030761b567/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/qkjy4_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matan Shelomi, 2014. "Editorial Misconduct—Definition, Cases, and Causes," Publications, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-10, April.
    2. Giangiacomo Bravo & Francisco Grimaldo & Emilia López-Iñesta & Bahar Mehmani & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2019. "The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8, December.
    3. Hopp, Christian & Hoover, Gary A., 2017. "How prevalent is academic misconduct in management research?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 73-81.
    4. Thomas Klebel & Stefan Reichmann & Jessica Polka & Gary McDowell & Naomi Penfold & Samantha Hindle & Tony Ross-Hellauer, 2020. "Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-19, October.
    5. Nosek, BA & Alter, G & Banks, GC & Borsboom, D & Bowman, SD & Breckler, SJ & Buck, S & Chambers, CD & Chin, G & Christensen, G & Contestabile, M & Dafoe, A & Eich, E & Freese, J & Glennerster, R & Gor, 2015. "Promoting an open research culture," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt7wh1000s, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hamilton, Daniel George & Fraser, Hannah & Hoekstra, Rink & Fidler, Fiona, 2020. "Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review," MetaArXiv qkjy4, Center for Open Science.
    2. Sun, Zhuanlan, 2024. "Textual features of peer review predict top-cited papers: An interpretable machine learning perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    3. Rong Ni & Ludo Waltman, 2024. "To preprint or not to preprint: A global researcher survey," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 75(6), pages 749-766, June.
    4. Zhuanlan Sun & C. Clark Cao & Sheng Liu & Yiwei Li & Chao Ma, 2024. "Behavioral consequences of second-person pronouns in written communications between authors and reviewers of scientific papers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Ying He & Kun Tian & Xiaoran Xu, 2023. "A validation study on the factors affecting the practice modes of open peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 587-607, January.
    6. Lucy Santos Green & Melissa P. Johnston, 2022. "A contextualization of editorial misconduct in the library and information science academic information ecosystem," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(7), pages 913-928, July.
    7. Cheng, Xi & Wang, Haoran & Tang, Li & Jiang, Weiyan & Zhou, Maotian & Wang, Guoyan, 2024. "Open peer review correlates with altmetrics but not with citations: Evidence from Nature Communications and PLoS One," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    8. Lui, P. Priscilla & Gobrial, Sarah & Pham, Savannah & Giadolor, Westley & Adams, Niki & Rollock, David, 2021. "Open Science and Multicultural Research: Some Data, Considerations, and Recommendations," OSF Preprints em9ua_v1, Center for Open Science.
    9. Neves, Kleber & Amaral, Olavo Bohrer, 2019. "Addressing selective reporting of experiments – the case for predefined exclusion criteria," MetaArXiv a8gu5_v1, Center for Open Science.
    10. Lohse, Johannes & Rahal, Rima-Maria & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Sofianos, Andis & Wollbrant, Conny, 2024. "Investigations of decision processes at the intersection of psychology and economics," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    11. Fong, Eric A. & Patnayakuni, Ravi & Wilhite, Allen W., 2023. "Accommodating coercion: Authors, editors, and citations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    12. Sun, Zhuanlan & Clark Cao, C. & Ma, Chao & Li, Yiwei, 2023. "The academic status of reviewers predicts their language use," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    13. Lu Liu & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi & Dashun Wang, 2023. "Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1046-1058, July.
    14. Abdelghani Maddi & Luis Miotti, 2024. "On the peer review reports: does size matter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(10), pages 5893-5913, October.
    15. Tirthankar Ghosal & Sandeep Kumar & Prabhat Kumar Bharti & Asif Ekbal, 2022. "Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-29, January.
    16. Andreas Nishikawa-Pacher & Tamara Heck & Kerstin Schoch, 2023. "Open Editors: A dataset of scholarly journals’ editorial board positions," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 228-243.
    17. Sun, Zhuanlan & He, Dongjin & Li, Yiwei, 2024. "How the readability of manuscript before journal submission advantages peer review process: Evidence from biomedical scientific publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    18. Sun, Zhuanlan & Pang, Ka Lok & Li, Yiwei, 2024. "The fading of status bias during the open peer review process," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    19. Chunli Wei & Jingyi Zhao & Jue Ni & Jiang Li, 2023. "What does open peer review bring to scientific articles? Evidence from PLoS journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2763-2776, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:metaar:qkjy4_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.