Start the week by opening up the black box of peer review
A note or two, from the publishers:
Our recent white paper, “Peer review: a global view”, which gathered opinions from over 7,400 researchers worldwide via an online survey and focus groups, found:
- 91% of HSS authors consider up to 2 months a reasonable amount of time to wait after submitting their manuscript to peer review before receiving feedback…yet 56% of authors report waiting longer than this.
- 95% of STM authors consider up to 2 months a reasonable amount of time to wait after submitting their manuscript to peer review before receiving feedback…yet 40% of authors report waiting longer than this.
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. The above discrepancy may be a symptom of this.
Published author and our very own Development Editor, Imogen Clarke confesses:
“When I was submitting papers as a PhD student, I never really thought about what was going on behind the scenes (and this is despite the fact that a lot of my research looked at the history of peer review itself!) I think I always just pictured my papers patiently sitting in a peer review system, waiting for somebody to click a button, or buried in a reviewer’s inbox for months. Working in publishing has really opened my eyes up to all the different steps involved, and I now realize that a whole team of people are working hard to get papers reviewed as quickly as possible.”
Read on at the link for more on:
– The purpose of peer review, and how reality is matching with expectation
– Perceptions on the prevalence of ethical issues in peer review
– Timeliness in peer review
– Different peer review models