Sense about Science
Should peer review detect fraud and misconduct? What does it do for science and what does the scientific community want it to do? Will it illuminate good ideas or shut them down? Should reviewers remain anonymous? In 2009, Sense about Science developed one of the largest ever international surveys of authors and reviewers, the Peer Review Survey 2009
http://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-survey-2009/
Adam Smith (This report has been produced within a contract with the European Commission.)
The European Commission joined many other research funders in 2013 when it announced that one central requirement of future research grantees of Horizon 2020 would be that their research publications be made freely available to all. The Commission’s vision is open access for research outputs, as announced in its 2012 Communication. This states: “Information already paid for by the public purse should not be paid for again each time it is accessed or used, and […] should benefit European companies and citizens to the full.”
The Commission has no preferred model for how to achieve open access. It is searching for innovation wherever it may be found, from traditional commercial publishers, new organisations, distributed academic networks, and research libraries. The goal of achieving open access is a public one that sits above private interests. This sometimes means that businesses are obliged to evolve and adapt in light of the project to move towards open access.
The move to open access scholarly publishing has been accelerating for many years. It is driven by many factors, including: the emergence and expansion of the internet, which enables the fast and free dissemination of research outputs; the fact that many academic libraries are reporting the rising cost of subscription journals and the declining number of journals they can subscribe to; a moral case that publicly funded research should be freely available for all to see; and a case that more dissemination of knowledge will lead to more innovation and therefore economic growth.
Taylor & Francis
In 2015, Taylor & Francis asked researchers from around the world to take part in an online survey and a series of focus groups, which aimed to explore what the experience of peer review was like for those involved in it on a regular basis: for the authors who write the papers, for the reviewers who review them, and for the journal editors who oversee the process.
The Research Information Network
This guide has been produced by The Research Information Network to provide researchers with an understanding of the peer review process and some of the current issues surrounding the debate about peer review.
Mark Ware
This survey intends to deliver a snapshot of current opinions and attitudes to different types of peer review from the viewpoint of both researchers and reviewers. In addition, it also delivers a comparison with earlier studies.
