Journal editors’ perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study

Glonti, Ketevan; Boutron, Isabelle; Moher, David; Hren, Darko

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033421

Cited by 47 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides this, our study confirmed the findings of previous studies. This included assessing the contributions of a manuscript (Ware, 2008a(Ware, , 2008b, quality control (Mulligan et al, 2013;VanTassell et al, 1992;Ware, 2008a), improvement of a manuscript (Mulligan et al, 2013;Nicholas et al, 2015;Rowlands & Nicholas, 2006;VanTassell et al, 1992;Ware, 2008b), assessing the suitability of a manuscript for a particular journal (Mulligan et al, 2013;VanTassell et al, 1992), providing a decision-making tool for editors (Glonti et al, 2019), and providing of a seal of accreditation or approval for published contents (Nicholas et al, 2015;Ware, 2008a). Another key finding was that stakeholders with different roles and tasks in the review process differed in their understanding of and the value they attached to functions of peer review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions

Severin¹,

Chataway²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Depending upon their relationship with the process, stakeholders might have diverging or even conflicting expectations about the functions that peer review should fulfil. We aimed to explore how different stakeholder groups across academic disciplines perceive peer review and what they expect from it. Methods: We conducted qualitative focus group workshops with early-, mid- and senior career scholars, reviewers, editors and publishers. We recruited participants following a purposive maximum variation sampling approach and used a semi-structured topic guide to moderate discussions. To identify purposes of peer review, we conducted a thematic analysis. Results: Stakeholders expected peer review (i) to assess the contributions of a manuscript, (ii) to conduct quality control, (iii) to improve manuscripts, (iv) to assess the suitability of manuscripts for a journals and its readership, (v) to provide a decision-making tool for editors, (vi) to provide feedback by peers, (vii) to curate a community and (viii) to provide a seal of accreditation for published articles. Stakeholder groups with different roles and tasks in the peer review process differed in their understanding of and the value they attached to different functions of peer review. Some stakeholder expectations are contradictory, revealing a tension between formative functions and summative functions of peer review. Conclusions: Stakeholder expectations towards peer review are profoundly shaped by how stakeholders perceive their own roles both in relation to the peer review process and within their scientific community.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions

Severin¹,

Chataway²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This attitude is in line with findings that highlighted journal editors’ apparent lack of appreciation for formal peer reviewer training. 7 In both cases, the justification was the same: peer reviewers should know how to review a manuscript without needing guidelines and training. Such an approach to the communication of roles and tasks is likely to be an obstacle to mutual understanding and may ultimately impact the quality of reports received.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A detailed description of the study design and methodology is available elsewhere 6 as well as in a related study using this dataset. 7 A brief description of the key methodological components follows below.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This led to our decision to publish the findings in two distinct, yet complementary, research papers. While in the first study, we focused on editors’ understanding of roles and tasks, 7 in this present study, we specifically examined how these are communicated to peer reviewers and how other interactions with peer reviewers and authors work in practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Journal editors’ perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo generate an understanding of the communication practices that might influence the peer-review process in biomedical journals.MethodRecruitment was based on purposive maximum variation sampling. We conducted semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis method.Participants56 journal editors from general medicine (n=13) and specialty (n=43) biomedical journals. Most were editor-in-chiefs (n=39), men (n=40) and worked part time (n=50).ResultsOur analysis generated four themes (1) providing minimal guidance to peer reviewers—two subthemes described the way journal editors rationalised their behaviour: (a) peer reviewers should know without guidelines how to review and (b) detailed guidance and structure might have a negative effect; (2) communication strategies of engagement with peer reviewers—two opposing strategies that journal editors employed to handle peer reviewers: (a) use of direct and personal communication to motivate peer reviewers and (b) use of indirect communication to avoid conflict; (3) concerns about impact of review model on communication—maintenance of anonymity as a means of facilitating critical and unburdened communication and minimising biases and (4) different practices in the moderation of communication between authors and peer reviewers—some journal editors actively interjected themselves into the communication chain to guide authors through peer reviewers’ comments, others remained at a distance, leaving it to the authors to work through peer reviewers’ comments.ConclusionsThese journal editors’ descriptions reveal several communication practices that might have a significant impact on the peer-review process. Editorial strategies to manage miscommunication are discussed. Further research on these proposed strategies and on communication practices from the point of view of authors and peer reviewers is warranted.

show abstract

“…Publishers and editors usually are not represented in these surveys and junior scholars are often under-represented. Qualitative analyses of stakeholder perceptions are another strand of research (Glonti et al, 2019;Harley et al, 2010;Severin and Chataway, 2020;University of Tennessee and CIBER Research Ltd, 2013). This research is not focused on reviewing burden, but indicates that stakeholders generally differ in their perceptions of challenges in peer review and respective solutions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overburdening of peer reviewers. A multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder perspective on causes, effects and potential policy implications

Severin

Chataway

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review of manuscripts is labour-intensive and time-consuming. Individual reviewers often feel themselves overburdened with the amount of reviewing they are requested to do. Aiming to explore how stakeholder groups perceive reviewing burden and what they believe to be the causes of a potential overburdening of reviewers, we conducted focus groups with early-, mid-, and senior career scholars, editors, and publishers. By means of a thematic analysis, we aimed to identify the causes of overburdening of reviewers. First, we show that, across disciplines and roles, stakeholders believed that the reviewing workload has become so enormous that the academic community is no longer able to supply the reviewing resources necessary to address its demand for peer review. Second, the reviewing workload is distributed unequally across the academic community, thereby overwhelming small groups of scholars. Third, stakeholders believed the overburdening of reviewers to be caused by (i) an increase in manuscript submissions; (ii) insufficient editorial triage; (iii) a lack of reviewing instructions; (iv) difficulties in recruiting reviewers; (v) inefficiencies in manuscript handling and (vi) a lack of institutionalisation of peer review. These themes were assumed to mutually reinforce each other and to relate to an inadequate incentive structure in academia that favours publications over peer review. In order to alleviate reviewing burden, a holistic approach is required that addresses both the increased demand for and the insufficient supply of reviewing resources.

show abstract

Journal editors’ perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study

Cited by 47 publications

References 31 publications

Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions

Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions

Journal editors’ perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study

Overburdening of peer reviewers. A multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder perspective on causes, effects and potential policy implications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About