IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/metaar/qkjy4.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, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:metaar:qkjy4
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/qkjy4
    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?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. Cat Ferguson & Adam Marcus & Ivan Oransky, 2014. "Publishing: The peer-review scam," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7528), pages 480-482, November.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Jennifer Lewis Priestley & Robert J. McGrath, 2019. "The Evolution of Data Science: A New Mode of Knowledge Production," International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), IGI Global, vol. 15(2), pages 97-109, April.
    3. Gaute Wangen, 2015. "Conflicting Incentives Risk Analysis: A Case Study of the Normative Peer Review Process," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-23, July.
    4. Fong, Eric A. & Patnayakuni, Ravi & Wilhite, Allen W., 2023. "Accommodating coercion: Authors, editors, and citations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    5. Jonathan P. Tennant & Harry Crane & Tom Crick & Jacinto Davila & Asura Enkhbayar & Johanna Havemann & Bianca Kramer & Ryan Martin & Paola Masuzzo & Andy Nobes & Curt Rice & Bárbara Rivera-López & Tony, 2019. "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-24, May.
    6. Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    7. Claudiu Herteliu & Marcel Ausloos & Bogdan Vasile Ileanu & Giulia Rotundo & Tudorel Andrei, 2017. "Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Editor Behavior through Potentially Coercive Citations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-16, June.
    8. Wilhite, Allen & Fong, Eric A. & Wilhite, Seth, 2019. "The influence of editorial decisions and the academic network on self-citations and journal impact factors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1513-1522.
    9. Ahmad Yaman Abdin & Muhammad Jawad Nasim & Yannick Ney & Claus Jacob, 2021. "The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R)," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, March.
    10. Anna Abalkina, 2021. "Detecting a network of hijacked journals by its archive," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 7123-7148, August.
    11. S. P. J. M. Horbach & W. Halffman, 2019. "The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 339-373, January.
    12. Catalin Toma & Liliana Padureanu & Bogdan Toma, 2022. "Correction of the Scientific Production: Publisher Performance Evaluation Using a Dataset of 4844 PubMed Retractions," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-25, April.
    13. Richard A. Bernardi & Kimberly A. Zamojcin & Taylor L. Delande, 2016. "Ranking accounting authors and departments in accounting education: different methodologies – significantly different results," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 568-597, November.
    14. Emre Sarigöl & David Garcia & Ingo Scholtes & Frank Schweitzer, 2017. "Quantifying the effect of editor–author relations on manuscript handling times," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 609-631, October.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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. 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.