Professional insight


to an alternative publisher if the first refuses. In the past year there have been significant developments by mainstream system providers, such as a move to accepting submissions directly from online authoring systems, automatically importing metadata. Some new open access publishers have opted to use their own home-


In the past year there have been significant developments


built systems, with very good feedback from authors and reviewers. The trend is towards more integration between disparate systems used in the publishing process.


What I see as likely developments in 2016 are:


l Less dependency on uploading attachments from authors, and more integration of submission systems with online authoring platforms;


l Further integration of the process ‘downstream’, allowing the peer reviewer to be just another user with a ‘role’ in the system. This integration will in principle allow post- publication as well as pre-publication peer review, or even both in the same workflow; and


l Integration of reviewer comments into the XML of the publication, allowing reviewer comments to be visible or hidden, as decided by the publisher. With more and more systems going into the ‘cloud’, it is now quite feasible to have a fully integrated end-to-end publication system, including full peer review, with the final deliverables, such as PDF files, generated automatically on a server.


Agnès Henri, Publishing Director at EDP Sciences says peer review is under scrutiny but is unavoidable


Peer review is the most valuable step for a journal, but it has never been under so much scrutiny, with a number of recent cases of misconduct leading several institutions to publish rules and


to reaffirm the importance of ethics. Referees are over-solicited and it is common to ask up to seven referees to obtain just one report for a paper, leading some journals/publishers to be less vigilant.


Although imperfect, peer review remains the only option to evaluate and filter science. EDP Sciences has always been concerned by peer review. Aware of the moving and challenging environment around peer review, we held a workshop in Paris in 2015. The purpose was to consider whether peer review has adapted to present day demands and constraints, and to consider and make recommendations to their partners about new practices and improvements that could be made to their procedures.


The meeting involved a committee of experts linked to the European Physical Journal. The workshop firstly confirmed the value of in-depth, quality peer review as an essential part of maintaining the highest possible


FEATURE


scientific standards. The huge improvements in availability of online information only serve to emphasise further the need for this vital filtration service, managed by publishers. The quality of refereeing is seen as an important factor in attracting authors to publish in a journal, and it also motivates authors to write good quality papers.


How can we give referees more recognition?


l By the publication of significant reviewer reports alongside articles; it would promote transparency of the process and give referees more recognition for their work;


l By using the concept of portable peer review – whereby previous referee reports are shared when an article is rejected and submitted to another journal. This could represent significant improvements in service to the research community, by shortening processing times, and relieving workload pressures on referees. It should be done not only for journals from a single publisher, but with the


Peer review remains the only option to evaluate and filter science


collaboration of all publishers;


l By extending ORCID integration to eliminate false/fabricated referees and integrate reports done by journals into a researcher’s personal record;


The quality check by the peer review process is essential and our reviewers are invaluable. Peer review is also a quality label that today is indispensable in order for green archives to exist.


review came to the fore. This trend is important because many of peer review’s biggest issues stem from the complete lack of incentives for reviewers to put aside their own research to offer comprehensive, prompt peer review of the work of others. Give reviewers a stronger reason to help out, and they’ll do a better job. In 2015 almost all the major publishers started experimenting with providing recognition for peer review. Wiley, Sage, Cambridge University Press, Royal Society, MDPI, eLife, the American Society for Microbiology, Emerald, and others have all launched pilots with Publons over the last year to reward and engage their reviewers, while Elsevier has also launched a reviewer profile product. ORCID too announced support for peer


www.researchinformation.info @researchinfo


review records (and a partnership with Publons) in October.


There was a similar explosion in the number of researchers getting credit for their peer review efforts over the past year. Surveys of


Give reviewers a stronger reason to help out, and they’ll do a better job


Publons users show reviewers value being able to keep track of the manuscripts they reviewed, and value having this verified track record of reviewing to include in promotion applications. Related to the latter point, this past year also saw the University of Queensland become the first university to include verified peer


review contributions in their research output management system.


The optimism that all of this activity is improving peer review is now gathering increasing support from the data. Results from Publons’ pilots show participating journals experience an increase in review invitation acceptance rates and a decrease in review turnaround time. Giving credit for peer review has a strong, positive effect on the process. The year ahead will undoubtedly see new cases of peer review scandals, new editorials calling for the death of peer review, and new frustrations with slow and inconsistent peer review. But it will also see a rapidly growing contingent of peer reviewers gaining recognition for prompt and comprehensive review.


FEBRUARY/MARCH 2016 Research Information 13


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36