Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts

eLife

Volumn 8, Issue , 2019, Pages

  McDowell, Gary S ^a   Knutsen, John D ^b   Graham, June M ^c   Oelker, Sarah K ^c   Lijek, Rebeccah S ^c  

^a Future of Research   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CAREER; CASE REPORT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; PEER REVIEW; ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PERSONNEL; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; RESEARCH PERSONNEL;

EID: 85074364971     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2050084X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.48425     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, Varmus H. 2014. Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. PNAS 111:5773–5777. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1073/pnas.1404402111, PMID: 24733905
2. Avasthi P, Soragni A, Bembenek JN. 2018. Journal clubs in the time of preprints. eLife 7:e38532. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38532, PMID: 2 9889024
3. Baldwin M. 2018. Scientific autonomy, public accountability, and the rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States. Isis 109:538–558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/700070
4. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. 1998. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 280:231–233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.231, PMID: 9676665
5. Bravo G, Grimaldo F, López-Iñesta E, Mehmani B, Squazzoni F. 2019. The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nature Communications 10:322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2, PMID: 306591 86
6. Burgess S. 2018. Boosting early-career involvement in peer review – an update. https://ecrlife.org/boosting-early-career-involvement-in-peer-review-an-update/[Accessed October 3, 2019].
7. Callaham ML, Tercier J. 2007. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLOS Medicine 4:e40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pmed.0040040, PMID: 17411314
8. Castelló M, Sala-Bubaré A, Bautista A. 2017. Being a researcher is not only a matter of publishing: learning to review scientific articles / No solo de publicar viven los investigadores: aprender a revisar artículos científicos. Infancia Y Aprendizaje 40:599–656. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2017.1357251
9. COPE Council. 2017. COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_ Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf [Accessed October 3, 2019].
10. Doran JM, Somerville W, Harlem-Siegel J, Steele H. 2014. The more you know. Teaching of Psychology 41: 122–129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628314530342
11. eLife. 2019. Reviewer guide. https://reviewer. elifesciences.org/reviewer-guide/reviewing-policies [Accessed October 3, 2019].
12. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. 1993. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. Journal of General Internal Medicine 8:422–428. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1007/BF02599618, PMID: 8410407
13. Harrison L. 2009. Open access-Open graduate students. 4th International Conference on E-Learning: University of Toronto, Canada. https://tspace.library. utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/18029/1/Open%20Access %20Open%20Grad%20Students.pdf [Accessed October 18, 2019].
14. Heggeness ML, Gunsalus KT, Pacas J, McDowell GS. 2016. Preparing for the 21st century biomedical research job market: using census data to inform policy and career decision-making. SJS.
15. Heggeness ML, Gunsalus KT, Pacas J, McDowell G. 2017. The new face of US science. Nature 541:21–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/541021a, PMID: 2 8054625
16. Houry D, Green S, Callaham M. 2012. Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial. BMC Medical Education 12:83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-83
17. Inside eLife. 2018. Early-career researchers: views on peer review. https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/982053f4/early-career-researchers-views-on-peer-review [Accessed October 3, 2019].
18. Kensinger EA. 2007. Negative emotion enhances memory accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science 16:213–218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-8721.2007.00506.x
19. McDowell GS. 2018. Early-career researchers and their involvement in peer review. https://asapbio.org/mcdowell-ecrs [Accessed October 3, 2019].
20. McDowell G, Lijek R. 2018. Help gather data and information to recognize the role of early career researchers in peer review. https://www.ascb.org/careers/help-gather-data-inform%C2%ADation-recognize-role-early-career-researchers-peer-review/[Accessed October 3, 2019].
21. Mehmani B. 2019. Two heads are better than one: working with a co-reviewer. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/two-heads-are-better-than-one-working-with-a-co-reviewer [Accessed October 3, 2019].
22. Merry L, Jarvis K, Kupoluyi J, Lual J. 2017. Doing peer review: reflections from anInternational group of postdoctoral fellows. Journal of Research Practice 13: V2.
23. Murray D, Siler K, Lariviére V, Chan WM, Collings AM, Raymond JS, Sugimoto CR. 2018. Author-reviewer homophily in peer review. bioRxiv. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1101/400515
24. Navalta JW, Lyons TS. 2010. Student peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers. Advances in Physiology Education 34:170–173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00046.2010, PMID: 21098383
25. Patterson M, Schekman R. 2018. How early-career researchers are shaping eLife. eLife 7:e36263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36263, PMID: 295 83120
26. Picciotto M. 2018. New reviewer mentoring program. The Journal of Neuroscience 38:511. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3653-17.2017, PMID: 293435 90
27. Pickett C, Bankston A, McDowell GS. 2017. The GSS is an unreliable Indicator of biological sciences postdoc population trends. bioRxiv. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1101/171314
28. Polka JK, Kiley R, Konforti B, Stern B, Vale RD. 2018. Publish peer reviews. Nature 560:545–547. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06032-w
29. PREreview. 2019. Post read and engage with preprint reviews. https://www.authorea.com/inst/14743-prereview [Accessed October 3, 2019].
30. Prichard JR. 2005. Writing to learn: an evaluation of the calibrated peer reviewTM program in two neuroscience courses. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education 4:34–39. PMID: 23493247
31. PRISMA Group, Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine 6:e1000097. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097, PMID: 1 9621072
32. Riehle CF, Hensley MK. 2017. What do undergraduate students know about scholarly communication?: a mixed methods study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 17:145–178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2017.0009
33. Rodríguez-Bravo B, Nicholas D, Herman E, Boukacem-Zeghmouri C, Watkinson A, Xu J, Abrizah A, Świgoń M. 2017. Peer review: the experience and views of early career researchers. Learned Publishing 30:269–277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1111
34. Ross-Hellauer T. 2017. What is open peer review? A systematic review. [version 2; peer review: 4 approved]. F1000Research 6:588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
35. Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. 2017. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLOS ONE 12: e0189311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0189311, PMID: 29236721
36. Schneiderhan E. 2013. Peer reviewers: why you Gotta be so mean? Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Peer-Reviewers-Why-You-Gotta/140469[Accessed October 3, 2019].
37. Stossel TP. 1985. Reviewer status and review quality. experience of the journal of clinical investigation. The New England Journal of Medicine 312:658–659. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198503073121024, PMID: 3974642
38. Tennant JP. 2017. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 6: 1151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research. 12037.3
39. Transpose. 2019. A database of journal policies on peer review, co-reviewing, and preprinting. https://transpose-publishing.github.io/[Accessed October 3, 2019].
40. Van Noorden R. 2018. Some hard numbers on science’s leadership problems. Nature 557:294–296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05143-8, PMID: 29769686