Sponsored content: Peer Review at IOP Publishing case study
Openness, transparency and experimentation: learning from new approaches to peer review
Marc Gillett, head of publishing operations at IOP Publishing, explains how the publisher explored new peer-review options, and what the reaction was from the scientific community
Fair and rigorous peer review is vital for IOP Publishing, as it allows us to maintain the high quality of the research we publish. We are fortunate to work with more than 72,000 active reviewers who have completed more than 260,000 reports since 2013. As well as ensuring quality, our peer-review
operation aims to free up researchers’ time to focus on science. To help achieve this, more than 60 of our staff worldwide work on peer-review administration. They pre-screen submissions to filter irrelevant or unethical articles before peer review. This enables reviewers to focus on work that is valuable to the scientific community. In 2018, we estimate this saved reviewers more than 87,000 hours. We are always listening to feedback from
the scientific community, and they told us they were interested in new approaches to peer review. This prompted us to trial three different approaches. The first was a trial of double-blind peer
review, in which neither the reviewer nor the author knows the other’s identity. To gauge the level of interest and uptake
from authors working in materials science and biomedical physics/engineering, in 2017 we introduced the option of double-blind peer review on two express journals – Materials Research Express and Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express. A year later, we expanded it to Plasma Research Express and in 2019 the New Journal of Physics and Engineering Research Express added a double-blind option for authors. Our second project was providing peer-
review information alongside every online publication. This tells readers which type of peer review the article underwent; the number of revisions before publication; and whether it was checked for originality. Publishing the peer-review information alongside a paper adds transparency to the process and increases readers’ confidence in published research.
www.researchinformation.info | @researchinfo Each of these new approaches taught us
something. On double-blind peer review, around a
quarter of authors submitting to the pilot journals chose the double-blind option. When we surveyed those who chose double-blind, 95 per cent of respondents rated their experience of the double-blind process as eight out of 10 or higher. Meanwhile, 85 per cent said they chose double-blind because they considered it the fairest system of peer review.
It’s early days for our TPR pilot, but so far
Marc Gillett, head of publishing operations at IOP Publishing
“Publishing the peer-review information
alongside a paper adds transparency to the process”
We were among the first publishers to
introduce this, responding to a demand for increased transparency within the community. When we surveyed more than 11,500 researchers, a clear majority told us they wanted to know if a paper they were reading had been peer-reviewed. The third approach we trialled is
transparent peer review (TPR), which we introduced with the help of Publons on the journals JPhys Materials, Journal of Neural Engineering and Environmental Research Letters in 2019. TPR is very different from double-blind
peer review. It shows the complete peer- review process from initial review to final decision, and has gained popularity with authors, reviewers and editors recently. It builds upon the principles of providing
peer-review information with a published paper but adds some significant other elements. It shows readers a full peer-review history, including reviewer reports, editors’ decision letters and authors’ responses. Each element has its own DOI to help readers reference and cite the peer review content. Reviewers can choose to sign their reports or remain anonymous.
more than 55 per cent of authors chose TPR when submitting, and more than 40 per cent of reviewers opted in. (In our pilot, authors and reviewers must both opt-in for the peer review history to be displayed with the published article.) We think that transparency may increase the quality of the peer-review process and could aid teaching of best practice in peer review. However, our work on peer review goes
beyond trialling different models. We are also investing in how we manage it, with two new staff roles dedicated to supporting quality peer review. Our research integrity and inclusion manager works with our author and reviewer communities on ethics, diversity and inclusion. They lead our efforts to increase the diversity of our reviewers, and head our in-house Diversity and Inclusion Publishing Group, as well as our separate Ethics Panel. Meanwhile, our reviewer engagement manager focuses on our reviewer training programme, working closely with early career researchers to guide and support them throughout their reviewing career. We are encouraged by the response to our
projects so far. We will keep innovating and experimenting with our approaches to peer review, continually learning and improving what we offer to the scientific community.
l To find out more about peer-review operations at IOP Publishing, visit our website at
ioppublishing.org/peer-review
February/March 2020 Research Information
9
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
