Feature


“Several other chemistry and interdisciplinary journals are also evaluating crowd review and related approaches”


gsuch as the US and UK, and as such, tend to invite reviewers from their own geographical regions. Preston is keen for this bias to be addressed, bluntly stating: ‘Geographical peer review disparity is harming the development of non-Western researchers. ‘Fewer review invitations mean fewer


invitations to see the latest research trends, learn what journals are looking for in a great manuscript, make professional connections with journal editors and develop critical analytical skills,’ he adds. Preston is hardly alone in his desire


to increase diversity in peer review, be it related to geography, gender or age. The theme of the 2018 Peer Review Week was diversity and inclusion, and myriad scholarly publishers have been looking at the issue. For example, in June 2018, four BioMed Central journals launched a pilot to endorse peer review mentoring, with an aim to increasing diversity. Meanwhile,


Elsevier’s Research Academy hosted a webinar with EASE and Sense about Science, that explored how to foster diversity in peer review. Kristen Marchetti, director of global


peer review at SAGE Publishing, is equally keen to advocate diversity and sums up widespread sentiment . ‘We welcome more diversity in the peer review community, as well as throughout the entire publishing and scholarly communication sector,’ she says. ‘Engaging with individuals from different backgrounds, connecting with early career researchers and achieving a good representation on gender and ethnic diversity will help with this. ‘This allows for different, unique


perspectives to be heard, enriches the scientific body of knowledge and increases the relevance and engagement,’ she adds. Still, as Marchetti admits, this is ‘easier said than done’. She highlights how SAGE aims to engage more early career researchers with its Reviewer Gateway and Reviewer Guide, which provide resources and instructions on peer review. ‘We are always looking at more effective and efficient ways to source appropriate peer reviewers for specific journals and reach out to early career researchers from different disciplines and parts of the world,’ she says. ‘More often than not, our editors will seek out individuals that can contribute to the research and body


Andrew Preston


of knowledge out there in more diverse ways... but it is challenging.’ Publon’s latest report highlighted


an associated worry; reviewer fatigue. Results revealed that reviewer completion rates are decreasing each year, while the total number of review invitations sent is increasing at 9.8 per cent year-on-year. As Marchetti comments: ‘Reviewer


fatigue varies by journal, editor and discipline. But in some niche areas... it’s not unusual for us to see reviewers who are used quite frequently.’ Professor Ben List, director of homogeneous catalysis at Max Planck Institute for Kohlenforschung and editor- in-chief of organic synthesis journal, Synlett, has devised a new collaborative


g A novel trial from eLife


Last year, eLife trialled a peer- review process designed to give authors more control over the decision to publish. As part of this, new submissions were initially evaluated by editors, with articles being invited for in-depth peer review. Then, after peer review and consultation among referees, the editor compiled a decision letter for the author.


The author then decided how


to respond to the letter and submitted a revised manuscript, as well as a response to the decision letter and reports. The editor evaluated this response, with the revised article being published alongside the decision letter, full review reports, author response and editor assessment. As eLife executive director,


Mark Patterson highlights that he 6 Research Information February/March 2019 Andy Collings


and colleagues initially wanted to explore the impact of giving authors greater control over how they respond to comments from peer reviewers. ‘We thought the process could have several long-term benefits


for research communication, by making it more efficient and constructive,’ he says. The first ‘encouraging’ results


have emerged, and according to Patterson’s colleague, Andy Collings, executive editor of eLife, the trial has proven popular. ‘Almost a third of authors opted in during the trial period... with the most common reasons for opting in relating to the efficiency of the process, and support for innovation and transparency,’ he says. The eLife team is still


assessing if this novel peer review is more efficient than traditional processes. However, as Collings says: ‘We


do hope the process provides an incentive for reviewers to participate and provide constructive criticism, since it’s highly likely both the paper and


peer reviews will be published.’ Interestingly, an initial


observation is that late-career authors fared better at being sent for in-depth peer review than early- and mid-career counterparts. ‘These results are somewhat


tentative... but if [they] hold we will need to consider ways to ensure that less- established researchers are not disadvantaged,’ says Patterson. ‘The trial process [also] appears to be less popular in some countries, including China, which is another finding that requires further examination.’ Patterson, Collings and


colleagues now intend to address more questions including: how long does peer review take during the process and what proportion of papers ended up getting published?


@researchinfo | www.researchinformation.info


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