Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers

Learned Publishing

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 269-277

  Rodríguez Bravo, Blanca ^a   Nicholas, David ^b   Herman, Eti ^b   Boukacem Zeghmouri, Chérifa ^c   Watkinson, Anthony ^a   Xu, Jie ^d   Abrizah, Abdullah ^e   Świgon, Marzena ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEÓN   (Spain)

^b CIBER RESEARCH LTD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

^d WUHAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA   (Malaysia)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WARMIA AND MAZURY IN OLSZTYN   (Poland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85030263956     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: 17414857     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/leap.1111     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Bornman, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197–245. https://doi.org/10. 1002/aris.2011.1440450112
2. Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2012). Reforming science: Methodological and cultural reforms. Infection and Immunity, 80(3), 891–896. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.06183-11
3. Casnici, N., Grimaldo, F., Gilbert, N., & Squazzoni, F. (2016). Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(7), 1763–1771. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23665
4. Colquhoun, D. (2011, 5 September). Publish or perish: Peer review and the corruption of science. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science
5. Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). On-line trust: Concepts, evolving themes, a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 737–758. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S1071-5819(03)00041-7
6. Egghe, L., & Bornman, L. (2013). Fallout and miss in journal peer review. Journal of Documentation, 69(3), 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-12-2011-0053
7. Grabner-Kräuter, S., & Kaluscha, E. A. (2003). Empirical research in on-line trust: A review and critical assessment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 783–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00043-0
8. Groves, T., & Khan, K. (2010). Is open peer review the fairest system? BMJ, 341(c6424), 1082–1083. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6424
9. Higher Education Founding Council for England. (2015). Staff employed at HEFCE-funded HEIs: Trends and profiles. Retrieved from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/analysis/staff/ecr/
10. Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784
11. Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 132–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798
12. Nature Publishing Group. (2015). Author insights – Initial findings. London, England: Nature Publishing Group. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1425362
13. Ness, R. B. (2014). The creativity crisis: Reinventing science to unleash possibility. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14. Nicholas, D., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Xu, J., Watkinson, A., Abrizah, A., Swigon, M. (2017). Where and how early career researchers find scholarly information. Learned Publishing, 30(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1087
15. Nicholas, D., Jamali, H. R., Watkinson, A., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., … Levine, K. (2015). Do younger researchers assess trustworthiness differently when deciding what to read and cite and where to publish? International Journal of Knowledge Content Development and Technology, 5(2), 45–63. https://doi.org/10. 5865/IJKCT.2015.5.2.045
16. Nicholas, D., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Watkinson, A., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Herman, E., Xu, J., Świgon, M. (2017). Early career researchers and their publishing and authorship practices in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 30(3), 205–217. https://doi. org/10.1002/leap.1102
17. Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H. R., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., Levine, K. (2015). Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 28(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10. 1087/20150104
18. Poli, S. (2016, 10 May). The annual conference of the German Association for HE Research [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://srheblog.com/2016/05/10/the-annual-conference-of-the-german-association-for-he-research/
19. Publishing Research Consortium. (2016). Publishing research consortium peer review survey 2015. London, England: Mark Ware Consulting. Retrieved from http://publishingresearchconsortium. com/
20. Research Information Network. (2010). Peer review: A guide for researchers. London, England: Research Information Network. Retrieved from http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Peer-review-guide-screen.pdf
21. Schriger, D. L., Kadera, S. P., & Von Elm, E. (2016). Are reviewers’ scores influenced by citations to their own work? An analysis of submitted manuscripts and peer reviewer reports. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 67(3), 401–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.003
22. Sense about Science. (2009). Peer review survey 2009. London, England: Sense about Science. Retrieved from http://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-survey-2009/
23. Shatz, D. (2004). Peer review: A critical inquiry. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
24. Souder, L. (2011). The ethics of scholarly peer review: A review of the literature. Learned Publishing, 24(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10. 1087/20110109
25. Taylor & Francis. (2016). Peer review in 2015: A global view. Park Drive, England: Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/custom/uploads/2015/10/Peer-Review-2015-white-paper.pdf
26. Van Rooyen, S., Delamothe, T., & Evans, S. J. (2010). Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 341, c5729. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729
27. Voas, J., Hurlburt, G. F., Miller, K. W., Laplante, P. A., & Michael, B. (2011). Thoughts on higher education and scientific research. IT Professional, 13(2), 6–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2011.34
28. Ware, M. (2011). Peer review: Recent experience and future directions. New Review of Information Networking, 16(1), 23–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2011.566812
29. Ware, M., & Monkman, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community an international study. London, England: Publishing Research Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.publishingresearch.net/PeerReview.htm
30. Warne, V. (2016). Rewarding reviewers – Sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learned Publishing, 29(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1002
31. Ziman, J. M. (1968). Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science. London, England: Cambridge University Press.