Sponsored content


Product Spotlight


under peer review at the journal. And undoubtedly like many, Gillett


BIOSIS Previews – The World’s Premier Life Sciences Research Database


Produced by the Web of Science Group, a Clarivate company, BIOSIS Previews® is an expansive index to life sciences and biomedical research from journals, books and patents. It covers pre-clinical and experimental research, methods and instrumentation, animal studies and more.


Comprehensive Coverage of All Relevant Literature Provide your researchers with the data they need to prepare research projects, grant proposals and follow trends in the life sciences. BIOSIS Previews combines journal content from Biological Abstracts® with supplemental, non-journal coverage from Biological Abstracts/ RRM® (Reports, Reviews, Meetings). Specialized indexing helps researchers discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.


Subjects Include: Traditional Topics: • Molecular biology • Botany • Zoology • Ecology and the environment • Microbiology Interdisciplinary Areas: • Experimental, Clinical and Veterinary Medicine, Biotechnology and Genetics


• Agriculture and Nutrition • Biomedicine • Physiology • Biochemistry • Pharmacology • Public Health


Key Benefits to Researchers: • Uncover relevant results in more fields of life sciences research than any other source in the world


• Explore biomedical meetings, patents and book contents not available in Web of Science™ Core Collection or MEDLINE®


• Find high-impact articles from peer-reviewed, influential journals


• Discover emerging trends that help you pursue successful research and grant acquisition


• Integrate searching, writing and bibliography creation into one streamlined process


Extensive Backfile Coverage Track over 90 years of vital data and find the supporting — or refuting — data you need. More backfiles give you the power to conduct deeper, more comprehensive searches and track trends through time.


For more information For more information on availability via EBSCOhost® and EBSCO Discovery Service™, please visit http://ebsco.is/BIOSIS


g


Weigel. ‘Funders and libraries might say, “these organisations are producing something valuable and we, as a community, are willing to pay for it” but it’s a big hurdle.’


Tradition and transparency Still, for many in the world of peer review, tradition largely remains. In September 2020, the Institute of Physics Publishing (IOPP) laid out plans to move all of its journals to double anonymous peer review – where reviewer and author identities are concealed – by the end of this year. The decision is meant to tackle


gender, racial and geographical under- representation in scholarly publishing, and follows positive trials on journals that involve single-anonymous and double- anonymous peer review. IOPP also offers transparent peer review on a number of journals, giving authors and reviewers the option of publishing an article’s peer review content in a discoverable, citable form. ‘We’re not forcing anyone down this


route but we felt it was really important to give authors and reviewers the choice to display the review history of the article and have as much transparency in the process as possible,’ highlights Marc Gillett, head of publishing operations at IOPP. At the same time, the publisher is intent on driving efficiencies across its peer review process. As Gillett puts it: ‘We consistently hear back from authors that the speed of peer review is one of the top things that they pay attention to when considering which journals to submit to.’ Given this, IOPP has launched a training


and certification programme to support researchers in peer review, and has also diversified its reviewer pool to tackle the well-worn issue of reviewer fatigue. However, the rise in preprints is undeniable – physicists have long-published research on preprint server arXiv – so with this in mind, the publisher has also started trialling an option for authors to list and link to their preprints while a manuscript is


is also watching eLife’s latest ‘publish, then review’ model with interest. ‘It is possible that the nature of peer review will change over the next couple of years, as we find new ways for preprint platforms and journals to complement each other, but it’s really important that research undergoes some form of peer review,’ he says. ‘Whether it’s a preprint or accepted manuscript, researchers ultimately need to have a trusted method of quality assurance, and this is something that we, as publishers, can deliver.’ So, in the time of Covid-19, what next


for peer review? Trust was the theme of Peer Review Week 2020, which, for Lou Peck – its steering committee co-chair from scholarly communications specialist consultancy The International Bunch – will remain as important as ever. ‘The peer review process is built on trust,’ she says. ‘Trust in those submitting articles, trust in the peer reviewers, trust in the process itself, and the organisations behind it, and finally trust in the published output.’ However, Peck feels the pandemic has pushed peer review, and the quality of published work, to the forefront of many minds. ‘One significant consequence of


“Culture change aside, who will pay for these emerging models of preprint review?”


Covid-19 is it has highlighted the impact of bad science and fake news, and how valuable peer review is. Publishers, service providers and those in research support have proactively taken steps to offer more support around peer review,’ she says. ‘I believe we’ve experienced more of a


stakeholder community-driven approach, and as a result, I hope we continue to see more collaborative working, as ultimately, we are better together,’ she adds. MIT Press’ Lindsay concurs, but also


believes the pandemic has underlined the importance of transparency in peer review. ‘Many editorial offices see the anonymity of peer review as something that needs to be preserved, in order for people to be forthright and open,’ he says. ‘But those arguments have been


outweighed by this need to get quickly legitimate research to other researchers and clinicians. Fingers crossed, we’re now looking at an era of more transparent, open peer review.’


@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