Diane Harley, Sophia Krzys Acord, Sarah Earl-Novell, Shannon Lawrence, C. Judson King
Copyright: Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkley
Since 2005, the Center for Studies in Higher Education (CSHE), has been conducting research to understand the needs and practices of faculty for in-progress scholarly communication (i.e., forms of communication employed as research is being executed) as well as archival publication. This report brings together the responses of 160 interviewees across 45, mostly elite, research institutions in seven selected academic fields: archaeology, astrophysics, biology, economics, history, music, and political science. The overview document summarizes the main practices explored across all seven disciplines: tenure and promotion, dissemination, sharing, collaboration, resource creation and consumption, and public engagement. In this report, readers can search various topics within and across case studies. The report identifies five key topics, addressed in detail in the case studies, that require real attention:
Council of Science Editors
Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. Most funding decisions in science and the academic advancement of scientists are based on peer-reviewed publications. Because the number of scientific articles published each year continues to grow, the quality of the peer-review process and the quality of the editorial board are cited as primary influences on a journal’s reputation, impact factor, and standing in the field. Scientific journals publishing peer-reviewed articles depend heavily on the scientific referees or reviewers who typically volunteer their time and expertise. In most circumstances, at least 2 reviewers are solicited to evaluate a manuscript; some journals request 3 reviews. This may be required in situations where review by a statistician is needed. In cases of controversy or strong disagreement regarding the merits of the work, an additional review may also be solicited or one of the journal’s editors might give an evaluation. More than 3 reviewers are sometimes used if reviewers from several fields are needed to obtain a thorough evaluation of a paper. In addition to fairness in judgment and expertise in the field, peer reviewers have significant responsibilities toward authors, editors, and readers.
British Academy
Peer review is the practice by which the worth of research is evaluated by those with demonstrated competence to make a judgment. It is the traditional means by which research quality is guaranteed in academic studies. The British Academy was concerned that the role peer review plays in underpinning the success of the UK research enterprise in the humanities and social sciences needed to be better understood by policy-makers.
The Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), European Association of Science Editors (EASE)
The aim of this combined ALPSP/EASE survey was to achieve a greater understanding of the peer review process in a variety of disciplines and to provide a set of agreed guidelines. The survey was exclusively online and was made available on the ALPSP website in October 2000. The questionnaire was highlighted in the news section of the home page and remained there for just over one month, during which 200 responses were collected and considerable interest was generated. The following report shows the results of the survey and also includes comments received by email during the time that the questionnaire was displayed
https://www.alpsp.org/write/mediauploads/current_practice_in_peer_review.pdf
Bev Acreman, Peter Berkery, Caroline Black, Chis Bourg, Becky Brasington Clark, Angela Cochran, Kevin Davies, Rachel Dresbeck, Catriona MacCallum, Paul Peters, Bobby Schnabel, Francisco Valdés Ugalde
The Open Scholarship Initiative 2016 (OSI2016) Peer Review workgroup focused on peer review in the context of open scholarship. The group agreed that greater openness and transparency would improve accountability, minimize bias, and encourage collaboration, but did not underestimate the challenges of openness, nor the variation in readiness across disciplines and publishing models. The group recommended facilitation of peer review outside the traditional publication process—for example, in the context of preprint servers and after publication—with incentives for broad participation. These incentives need to include a cultural shift in recognition of peer review as a valid activity contributing to career progression.
