Reviewers have a responsibility to promote ethical peer review by: 2021

Reviewers have a responsibility to promote ethical peer review by
Reviewers have a responsibility to promote ethical peer review by:


Reviewers have a responsibility to promote ethical peer review by:

Thank you very much for the introduction peer review, and it’s a pleasure to be here. People at the back, if at any point I do drop the microphone too far away. Then just sort of signal to me to keep it up near the mouth. I’m going to do a brief overview of some of the things that we’re thinking about at Taylor & Francis to find and reward peer reviewers. And obviously, in any group of editors, peer review will always be something that we want to talk about because it is such a significant task. Particularly, if the first few invites you send out don’t get the results you were looking for, then it can be really time-consuming for editors to look through various databases and find the right contact details for people. And looking at some data across a wide range of T&F journals in 2016-2018, on average, around 26% of reviewer invites sent led to a completed report being returned. And that was incredibly variable across subject areas.

Arts and humanities were out in front at about 52%, some of the medical subject areas were a bit lower. So obviously, helping editors to find and engage with the right peer reviewers is incredibly important. There are all these databases, and there are tools that add to these databases to help support editors find the right reviewers. And most of these tools work by putting in maybe the abstract or the full text of the article and then searching the database. It brings up articles which it thinks are related and shows you the authors of those articles as potential peer reviewers. Anyone who uses PubMed a great deal might be familiar with JANE, a free online tool that can do this in the PubMed database. And one I want to mention at the moment is Reviewer Connect, which is actually a Publons tool, working off Publons and Web of Science data. We’re currently actually running a test of this on six of our journals.

which of the following statements is true regarding authorship practices?

Those of you who use ScholarOne Manuscript Central for your journals are possibly quite familiar with the reviewer locator interface, which is on the lefthand side of the screen here. It just brings up within the system a list of possible reviewers. On the right-hand This is the view in Reviewer Connect, which is potentially integrated into the system, and it does look quite similar. It shows you the most relevant works that it’s found that link up the article that you’re looking at with the Web of Science data. But there are a few additional bits of information that Reviewer Connect gives you about the reviewers it’s suggesting. For example, it shows exactly how many articles that person has on the Web of Science to get that immediate sense of the person’s seniority involved. If they’ve got a verified ORCiD, then there’s a little symbol on the account, as you can see. It also does a quick search for whether that person might have a conflict of interest relating to that article. Does that person maybe look like they’re at the same institution as the authors of the article, or from the searches that the tool has done.

Does it think they might have co-published together?

It brings up the little red flag, not as a “do not invite,” but a “maybe check before you invite.” And we’re testing out whether we would recommend this tool by looking at it in six biomedical journals. The team that is testing, what they’re doing is they’re running the Reviewer Connect search, and then they’re checking some of those suggestions to see, they would invite them as a peer reviewer. These journals are very selective, and they’re looking for researchers who are maybe a bit more advanced in their career, so they are selecting for a minimum of 20 previous publications. They are being quite selective about who they’re picking, and they are following all these other criteria when they’re checking the suggestions. Overall, around 27% of the reviewers who were checked were, in the end, invited by the team. And if 27% sounds low, I’m going to tell you that my experience with this kind of tool is that’s actually very good, particularly on such a selective set of criteria.

It did vary a huge amount, as it always does, with the subject area. If there’s a particularly niche article, it can be challenging for these kinds of automated tools to pick up exactly the right keywords and do the matching quite as well. But in some articles it was up to 70% of the suggestions was suitable. And the team certainly found that the extra information displayed in the list helped them use that tool more effectively. So that’s a little bit about some of the tools out there to help find peer reviewers and the trial that we’re doing with Reviewer Connect to see if we think this is something that we should be recommending more widely. It’s also very gratifying that China has been mentioned so many times already this morning because also, as well as finding the right peer reviewers in the databases, actually expanding the diversity of the reviewer pools for journals is really important. I think other publishers have reported very similar data. Still, if you look at the number of reviewers you get from different countries, even though there’s a massive search of publications coming from China, there’s no same number of peer reviewers. Again, looking at some data from us, from 2016-2017, across a wide range of subject areas, 24% of the reviewers were from the USA, but only around 5% from China. What was very interesting as well as that, if you were to send an invitation to a reviewer from China or India, you were much more likely to get a yes, which is obviously clear because they’re not being invited to review as much, so they’ve got more time to do it.

How does peer review affect research

One of the ways we’re looking at working on this and trying to increase that engagement from China and India is launching a new training program to try to bring onboard researchers to these regions. As Gavin just mentioned, getting good practice instilled very early on in a career is significant in publication ethics. It’s imperative in peer review as well. So we’re aiming to engage with researchers who are at the point where they’ve got enough experience of being an author and being in the field that they should be starting to get involved in peer review. Still, maybe they’ve not had huge amounts of reviewer experience yet or don’t know the journals. So we will be launching this summer some in-person workshops. But what’s really key is that we want to make sure that participants who do have enough experience also link with relevant journals. So if the editor of a journal is interested in getting some more reviewers from these regions, we can say, “Hey, we’ve just trained somebody.

How to do peer review

let’s put you together.” We can organize a few bits of feedback on those initial review reports so that the reviewer also gets that idea of whether they’re doing a good job and how their skills as a reviewer are developing. And finally, I’ve talked about finding reviewers, engaging with a wider pool, but also once you’ve got your peer reviewers, you’ve got to reward them in a way that makes them want to come and be your reviewer again and again and again. Repeatedly it shows that reviewers, really what they’re looking for more than anything, is a “thank you,” and maybe some feedback from the journal editor on how well they did.

which of the following statements is true regarding the responsibilities of a reviewer?

These are the details for the Wiley survey, and other surveys have shown very similar things. I’m not going to talk about this in a lot of detail because I think other people will cover various bits of these topics. As Professor Bouter said at the very beginning, occasionally putting lots of details into Publons can feel like a lot of work. Still, on almost 500 of the journals, we now have an integration to make that a lot easier for reviewers to claim their work in Publons. And also, there are various other ways to say “thank you” to our reviewers, and these are some of the things that we can offer at Taylor & Francis, and I’m sure that you’ve got journals that have other reward programs in place as well. So that’s a rapid introduction to a few of the things we’re thinking about, which I’m sure we can talk about more in questions or over lunch. At this point, I believe I’m handing it over to Laura to take us in more detail through the Publons side.

You want to know more about peer review go here and ask your question

Previous articleSkim a round reviews 2021 | Dzho Reviews
Next articleRefissa review 2021 Tretinoin cream is it work!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here