The peer‐review process

Rowland, Fytton

doi:10.1087/095315102760319206

Cited by 146 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, one phase of the publication process has not yet changed, viz. our collective dependence on the goodwill of referees to provide rigorous yet fair assessments of submitted articles in a timely manner (Rowland 2002). Indeed, most reviewers are volunteers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The need for speed in a crisis discipline: perspectives on peer-review duration and implications for conservation science

Cooke

Nguyen

Wilson

et al. 2016

Endang. Species. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarly peer review relies on rigorous yet fair assessments of articles by qualified referees in a timely manner. We considered the extent to which a prolonged peer-review process can delay the dissemination of results in a conservation context by combining insight from a survey with our own perspectives. A survey of authors who published peer-reviewed articles in biodiversity and conservation in 2012 and 2013 yielded 461 responses from participants in 119 countries. Approximately 44% of respondents thought that slow review times might hamper conservation, while only ~5% provided specific examples of how slow reviews had actually impeded conservation actions or policy formation. When queried about the value of expediting the review process for studies of high policy or conservation relevance, ca. 1/3 of respondents thought it was a worthwhile idea in principle, though mechanics of implementing such practices are unclear. Author self-identification of potentially important papers could lead to requesting a rapid review provided that a paper meets certain criteria -an approach already used by some generalist journals. Given the urgency of many conservation-oriented initiatives, we encourage the entire editorial team (staff, editors, referees, authors) to make a concerted effort towards improving the speed of the peer-review process while maintaining quality. Such efforts would reflect the notion that timeliness is a key component of scientific relevance to practitioners and policy makers in a crisis discipline. We conclude that there is a 'need for speed' and advocate that rapid, rigorous and thorough peer review can be accomplished and can provide collective benefits to the scientific community and global biodiversity.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The need for speed in a crisis discipline: perspectives on peer-review duration and implications for conservation science

Cooke

Nguyen

Wilson

et al. 2016

Endang. Species. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 This process usually includes an initial editorial decision as to whether a manuscript will be sent out for review. This decision is based on the editors' assessment of whether the manuscript addresses issues that are within the scope of interest of the journal and meets the journal's standards.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Desk-rejections usually stem from submitted work that does not fall into the journal's domain, has no significant scientific contribution, is underdeveloped, or suffers from poor editing. 1,2 One apparent difference between PS and PSPB is their use (or not) of desk rejections.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Write when hot — submit when not: seasonal bias in peer review or acceptance?

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Rowland's 2002 estimate 6 (like the Wellcome report, drawing on previously published studies) the average cost to the publisher of refereeing is $200 ($205 at 2004 values). This cost is incurred for every article submitted.…”

Section: Direct Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The true costs of scholarly journal publishing

Morris

2005

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been much debate recently about whether publishers' prices are too high, and what publishing a journal article really costs. Publication of the article in a journal is only one part of the cost of research communication; first of all there are the costs of research and writing, then the costs of peer review, editing and publication, and finally the costs of acquisition by the library, management, storage, reading by the end user and long‐term preservation. Several studies have been conducted of these different costs; the results are summarized and the potential impact, both on costs and on sources of funds, of moving to an alternative, ‘author‐funded’ open access model is considered.

show abstract

The peer‐review process

Cited by 146 publications

References 27 publications

The need for speed in a crisis discipline: perspectives on peer-review duration and implications for conservation science

The need for speed in a crisis discipline: perspectives on peer-review duration and implications for conservation science

Write when hot — submit when not: seasonal bias in peer review or acceptance?

The true costs of scholarly journal publishing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About