Quantifying professionalism in peer review

Gerwing, Travis G.; Gerwing, Alyssa M. Allen; Avery‐Gomm, Stephanie; Choi, Chi‐Yeung; Clements, Jeff C.; Rash, Joshua A.

doi:10.1186/s41073-020-00096-x

Cited by 44 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Editors' preference to tone down potentially offensive or discriminatory remarks is also comprehendible, particularly given current pressures to retain reviewers, the non-trivial rate of unprofessional reviews and their potential negative impact on authors' productivity and wellbeing. 7,22,47,48 This course of action has also been specifically advised in cases discussed by the COPE Forum. 49 Removal of identifying information is also likely reflective of stricter enforcement of blinding policies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

Hamilton

Fraser

Hoekstra

et al. 2020

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 editors of journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. We found that 49% of the journals surveyed checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, that 61% allowed authors to recommend both for and against specific reviewers, and that less than 6% used a form of open peer review. Most journals did not have an official policy on altering reports from reviewers, but 91% of editors identified at least one situation in which it was appropriate for an editor to alter a report. Editors were also asked for their views on five issues related to publication ethics. A majority expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their own journals, and replication studies. Our results provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role and transparency of peer review in scholarly publishing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

Hamilton

Fraser

Hoekstra

et al. 2020

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the situations examined in the current study, one could argue that fixing spelling and grammatical errors is benign, or even a necessary copy-editing step prior to publication of reviews. Editors' preference to tone down potentially offensive or discriminatory remarks is also comprehendible, particularly given current pressures to retain reviewers, the non-trivial rate of unprofessional reviews and their potential negative impact on authors' productivity and wellbeing [7,21,42,43]. This course of action has also been specifically advised in cases discussed by the COPE Forum [44].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

Hamilton¹,

Fraser²,

Hoekstra³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 journal editors of high-impact journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. Editors were asked for details about peer review policies and practices at their journals, as well as their views on five publication ethics issues. Key findings included: almost half of surveyed journals checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, adoption of “open” policies was uncommon and a fifth of editors reported that disagreement with a reviewer’s recommendation would be grounds for editing a report (with or without the reviewer’s permission). The majority of editors expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to raw data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their journals and replication studies. These results highlight differences in peer review policies across journals and provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role of peer review in scholarly publishing, and transparency in editorial and publishing policy.

show abstract

“…In an analysis of how pervasive the problem is in the field of ecology and evolution, based on 1491 sets of reviewer comments, Gerwing et al. (2020) found that 10–35% of peer reviews provided to authors included demeaning language, while 43% contained at least one unprofessional comment about the author or the author's work. I have not found a similar study in agricultural economics.…”

Section: Inclusion and The Scholarly Merit System: How Can They Be Almentioning

confidence: 99%

Fostering a culture of equity, diversity, and inclusion in the Canadian agricultural economics profession

Yiridoe

2020

Canadian J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Canadian agricultural economics profession, like much of society, is faced with the important challenge of how to effectively achieve aspirational goals of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). I argue that the Canadian agricultural economics society (CAES) will benefit from integrating EDI into our core mission and key activities. I focus on a select set of issues that I believe will further this effort. Given the critical role of scholarly merit and merit‐based systems and processes in the CAES mandate and activities, I also explore how meritocracy and scholarly merit can be aligned with EDI principles. The paper concludes with suggestions and recommendations for consideration by the CAES.

show abstract

Quantifying professionalism in peer review

Cited by 44 publications

References 17 publications

Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

Fostering a culture of equity, diversity, and inclusion in the Canadian agricultural economics profession

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About