IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v10y2022i1p12-d773626.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advancing Self-Evaluative and Self-Regulatory Mechanisms of Scholarly Journals: Editors’ Perspectives on What Needs to Be Improved in the Editorial Process

Author

Listed:
  • Katarina Krapež

    (Department of Law, Faculty of Management, University of Primorska, 6000 Koper, Slovenia)

Abstract

Meticulous self-evaluative practices in the offices of academic periodicals can be helpful in reducing widespread uncertainty about the quality of scholarly journals. This paper summarizes the results of the second part of a qualitative worldwide study among 258 senior editors of scholarly journals across disciplines. By means of a qualitative questionnaire, the survey investigated respondents’ perceptions of needed changes in their own editorial workflow that could, according to their beliefs, positively affect the quality of their journals. The results show that the most relevant past improvements indicated by respondents were achieved by: (a) raising the required quality criteria for manuscripts, by defining standards for desk rejection and/or shaping the desired qualities of the published material, and (b) guaranteeing a rigorous peer review process. Respondents believed that, currently, three areas have the most pressing need for amendment: ensuring higher overall quality of published articles (26% of respondents qualified this need as very high or high), increasing the overall quality of peer-review reports (23%), and raising reviewers’ awareness of the required quality standards (20%). Bivariate analysis shows that respondents who work with non-commercial publishers reported an overall greater need to improve implemented quality assessment processes. Work overload, inadequate reward systems, and a lack of time for development activities were cited by respondents as the greatest obstacles to implementing necessary amendments.

Suggested Citation

  • Katarina Krapež, 2022. "Advancing Self-Evaluative and Self-Regulatory Mechanisms of Scholarly Journals: Editors’ Perspectives on What Needs to Be Improved in the Editorial Process," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:10:y:2022:i:1:p:12-:d:773626
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/10/1/12/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/10/1/12/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey Beall, 2012. "Predatory publishers are corrupting open access," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7415), pages 179-179, September.
    2. Adrian Mulligan & Louise Hall & Ellen Raphael, 2013. "Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 132-161, January.
    3. Ramello, Giovanni B., 2010. "Copyright and endogenous market structure: a glimpse from the journal-publishing market," POLIS Working Papers 146, Institute of Public Policy and Public Choice - POLIS.
    4. Adrian Mulligan & Louise Hall & Ellen Raphael, 2013. "Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 132-161, January.
    5. Harley, Diane & Acord, Sophia Krzys & Earl-Novell, Sarah & Lawrence, Shannon & King, C. Judson, 2010. "Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines - Executive Summary," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt0kr8s78v, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    6. Douglas Heaven, 2018. "AI peer reviewers unleashed to ease publishing grind," Nature, Nature, vol. 563(7733), pages 609-610, November.
    7. Zaharie, Monica Aniela & Osoian, Codruţa Luminiţa, 2016. "Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-79.
    8. Harley, Diane & Acord, Sophia Krzys & Earl-Novell, Sarah & Lawrence, Shannon & King, C. Judson, 2010. "Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt15x7385g, Center for Studies in Higher Education, 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. Laura Bowering Mullen, 2024. "Open Access, Scholarly Communication, and Open Science in Psychology: An Overview for Researchers," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(1_suppl), pages 21582440231, April.
    2. Alexander Cuntz & Frank Mueller-Langer & Alessio Muscarnera & Prince C. Oguguo & Marc Scheufen, 2024. "Access to science and innovation in the developing world," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 78, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    3. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2021. "The interplay between the reviewer’s incentives and the journal’s quality standard," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3041-3061, April.
    4. Bianchi, Federico & Grimaldo, Francisco & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2019. "The F3-index. Valuing reviewers for scholarly journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 78-86.
    5. Yuetong Chen & Hao Wang & Baolong Zhang & Wei Zhang, 2022. "A method of measuring the article discriminative capacity and its distribution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3317-3341, June.
    6. Michail Kovanis & Ludovic Trinquart & Philippe Ravaud & Raphaël Porcher, 2017. "Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 651-671, October.
    7. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Jiechun Liang, 2020. "Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 607-623, October.
    8. Maciej J Mrowinski & Piotr Fronczak & Agata Fronczak & Marcel Ausloos & Olgica Nedic, 2017. "Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, September.
    9. Hamid R. Jamali & David Nicholas & Eti Herman, 2016. "Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 37-49.
    10. Alessio J. G. Brown & Klaus F. Zimmermann, 2017. "Three decades of publishing research in population economics," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(1), pages 11-27, January.
    11. Narjes Vara & Mahdieh Mirzabeigi & Hajar Sotudeh & Seyed Mostafa Fakhrahmad, 2022. "Application of k-means clustering algorithm to improve effectiveness of the results recommended by journal recommender system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3237-3252, June.
    12. Jens Peter Andersen & Serge P. J. M. Horbach & Tony Ross-Hellauer, 2024. "Through the secret gate: a study of member-contributed submissions in PNAS," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5673-5687, September.
    13. Jingfeng Xia, 2013. "The Open Access Divide," Publications, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-27, October.
    14. Erin C McKiernan, 2017. "Imagining the “open” university: Sharing scholarship to improve research and education," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, October.
    15. Abbie Griffin & Gloria Barczak, 2020. "Effective reviewing for conceptual journal submissions," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 10(1), pages 36-48, June.
    16. Tony Ross-Hellauer & Arvid Deppe & Birgit Schmidt, 2017. "Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-28, December.
    17. Esteban Morales & Erin C McKiernan & Meredith T Niles & Lesley Schimanski & Juan Pablo Alperin, 2021. "How faculty define quality, prestige, and impact of academic journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-13, October.
    18. Michail Kovanis & Raphaël Porcher & Philippe Ravaud & Ludovic Trinquart, 2016. "Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 695-715, February.
    19. Adrian Mulligan & Louise Hall & Ellen Raphael, 2013. "Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 132-161, January.
    20. Diane (DeDe) Dawson & Esteban Morales & Erin C McKiernan & Lesley A Schimanski & Meredith T Niles & Juan Pablo Alperin, 2022. "The role of collegiality in academic review, promotion, and tenure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, April.

    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:gam:jpubli:v:10:y:2022:i:1:p:12-:d:773626. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.