ASAPbio ran two surveys in advance of the Peer Review meeting: one more general survey for all stakeholders (closed 2018-02-06 with 295 responses) and one on Peer Feedback for authors and reviewers (closed 2018-01-31 with 370 responses).
eLife Early-Career Advisory Group
Many researchers have strong views on peer review. To find out what early-career researchers think eLife Early-Career Advisory Groupconducted a survey in which 10 questions about different aspects of peer review were asked. A total of 264 researchers took part in the survey, including 146 postdoctoral researchers (55% of the total), 61 group leaders (23%) and 51 PhD students (19%). The survey was conducted in September 2017.
https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/982053f4/early-career-researchers-views-on-peer-review
Adrian Mulligan, Louise Hall, Ellen Raphael
This large-scale international study measures the attitudes of more than 4,000 researchers toward peer review. In 2009, 40,000 authors of research papers from across the globe were invited to complete an online survey. Researchers were asked to rate a number of general statements about peer review, and then a subset of respondents, who had themselves peer reviewed, rated a series of statements concerning their experience of peer review. The study found that the peer review process is highly regarded by the vast majority of researchers and considered by most to be essential to the communication of scholarly research. Nine out of 10 authors believe that peer review improved the last paper they published. Double-blind peer review is considered the most effective form of peer review. Nearly three quarters of researchers think that technological advances are making peer review more effective. Most researchers believe that although peer review should identify fraud, it is very difficult for it to do so. Reviewers are committed to conducting peer review in the future and believe that simple practical steps, such as training new reviewers would further improve peer review.
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/
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.
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.
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
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.
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.