0 1 2 The Tortoise And The Hare: Review Time By Research .
2018GLOBALSTATEOF PEERREVIEW
Global State of Peer Review0FOREWORD2INTRODUCTION4What is peer review?5The role of the editor7Why is peer review so important?8 Why do researchers choose to peer review?12 Previous research on peer review131241WHO IS DOING THE REVIEW?14Supply and demand of peer review, by region15Supply and demand of editors18Growth in review output over time20Supply and demand of peer review, by research area21Review distribution within regions and research areas22Reviewer distribution, by gender24HOW EFFICIENT IS THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS?27The peer review funnel28Why do reviewers decline review invitations?30How long does it take to write a review?32The tortoise and the hare: Review time by research area343—WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT PEER REVIEW QUALITY?36Does size matter?37The power of the Journal Impact Factor?38Researcher perceptions of quality41Direct measures of review quality43WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?44Reviewer fatigue on the rise45Reviewers are getting faster45The rise of China46Supplying the reviewer pool47A shift to greater transparency?48Consensus: Incentives matter49CLOSING REMARKS50APPENDICES52
Global State of Peer Review—FOREWORDAs Publons has grown overthe last six years, so too hasawareness of the importantrole that peer review — andpeer reviewers — play inour ecosystem.However, there is still a substantial gapin our basic understanding of who thereviewers are, how much review work theyundertake, the quality of those reviews,and what researchers think of it all.Working with our colleagues at ScholarOneand Web of Science, we developed this reportto shine some light on these questions. Wehope it will prove to be a useful resource forthe community and inform the developmentof the scholarly ecosystem in the comingyears as we address the challenges of: ensuring the quality and efficiency of theliterature in the face of rapidly increasingpublication rates; the emergence of new, innovative modelsof peer review; t he shift to open access and theemergence of predatory publishers; and i ncreasing diversity in genderand geographic distribution.One of the key findings in this report is thatresearchers from emerging regions areunder-represented in the peer review process.While there are indications this trend mayself-correct in the long run, we believe it is anurgent issue to address. We will struggle tomeet the growing demands on the systemwithout the contributions of the full globalresearch community. The reality is thatthis peer review disparity is harming thedevelopment of non-Western researchers— fewer review invitations means feweropportunities to see the latest researchtrends, learn what journals are looking forin a great manuscript, make professionalconnections with journal editors, and developcritical analysis skills.With that said, I am proud to present the firstedition of the Global State of Peer Reviewreport. I hope you find it as informative to readas it was for us to create, and look forwardto your feedback, ideas, and suggestions.Regards,DR ANDREW PRESTON, PUBLONS COFOUNDERSEPTEMBER 20182
Global State of Peer Review—3ABOUT THIS REPORTThis inaugural GlobalState of Peer Reviewreport has been developedto investigate the state ofscholarly journal peer review.To do that, we have focused on four bigquestions, each of which form a chapterin this report.1. Who is doing the review?2. How efficient is the peer review process?3. What do we know about peer reviewquality?4. What does the future hold?We have combined one of the largestpeer review surveys of the global researchcommunity with data derived from ClarivateAnalytics’ powerful cross-publisher sources.This is one of the largest sets of dataabout peer review ever collated. We hope it willbring a new level of transparency to the worldof peer review, as well as lay the groundworkfor future iterations of this report that delveinto more areas of peer review.The datasets do include limitations, such asgreater coverage of the hard sciences, i.e.,Science, Technology, Engineering and Medical(STEM) research areas. While data coveringpeer review of the Humanities and SocialSciences (HSS) are included, they are not aswell classified as the data for traditional STEMresearch areas. We acknowledge this andhope to explore the HSS disciplines in greaterdetail as the data become available.See pages 54-57 in the appendix for afull description of the data, methodologies,limitations, and assumptions usedthroughout this report.Our primary Data sources: Web of Science — aggregated publicationand research field data. ScholarOne Manuscripts — aggregatedsubmission and peer review data. P ublons — aggregated peer review data. P ublons’ 2018 Global Reviewer Survey*: Over 11,800 researchers globally, largelysourced from the Publons communityand authors with articles indexed inWeb of Science. Interviews with key opinion leadersat five publishers.* Visit publons.com/community/gspr for the fullPublons’ 2018 Global Reviewer Survey report.To learn more aboutthe Global Sate of PeerReview report, or aboutPublons, visit:publons.com/community/gsprOr get in touch ublons.GSPR2018
Global State of Peer Review0INTRO—DUCTIONWHAT IS PEER REVIEW?Scholarly peer review (alsoknown as refereeing) isthe process of subjectingan author’s scholarly work,research, or ideas to thescrutiny of others who areexperts in the same field.—4
Global State of Peer Review—HOW IT WORKSHISTORYFIG.1 — THE BASIC PUBLISHING WORKFLOWThe peer review process islargely recognized to havebegun in 1776 with thepublication of PhilosophicalTransactions by the RoyalSociety and has evolvedover hundreds of years.SUBMITEDITORIALCHECKDuring the 20 th century, public funding forscientific research grew dramatically andso did the volume of published literatureand corresponding peer review T“IF REVIEWERS ARE EDUCATEDON THE RESPONSIBILITIESAND EXPECTATIONS OF BEINGA REVIEWER.THEY SPENDTHE RIGHT AMOUNT OF TIMEON A REVIEW, THE EDITORSTHEN RECEIVE COMMENTSIN A TIMELY FASHION, ANDAUTHORS RECEIVE RICHAND VALUABLE FEEDBACK.”KRISTEN MARCHETTI, ASSOCIATEDIRECTOR OF PEER REVIEW, SAGE5
Global State of Peer Review—6TYPES OF PEER REVIEWDuring the 20th century,most fields of research andjournals settled into a “singleblind” peer review processwhere two or three reviewersprovide the author and editorwith feedback through oneor more rounds of review.While there are hints that more transparentforms of peer review are gaining mindshare(see chapter 4), the single-blind and doubleblind peer review processes still dominate today.FIG.2 — COMMON AND EMERGINGPEER REVIEW MODELSFIG. 3 — PEER REVIEW POLICIES ON PUBLONS,BY JOURNALData source: PublonsSINGLE-BLIND – reviewers unknown to authorREVIEWERAUTHORFor another view on the prevalence of differentpeer review models, we can look at how muchtransparency publishers and journals allowtheir reviews to have on Publons:A breakdown of publisher-elected policies from asample of 15,000 journals on Publons, where 63%(9,530) have a publisher-elected review display policy,and 37% (5,520) are unspecified.SIGNED(reviewer namepublished)BLIND(name notpublished)OPEN(review contentpublished)1.62%0.15%CLOSED (contentnot published)0.11%61.83%DOUBLE-BLIND – author and reviewers unknownto each otherREVIEWERAUTHORTRIPLE-BLIND – authors, reviewers and editorsall unknown to each otherREVIEWEREDITORAUTHOROPEN-IDENTITIES – author and reviewersare aware of each other’s identityREVIEWERAUTHOROPEN REPORTS – review reports are publishedalongside the relevant articleOPEN IDENTITIES & OPEN REPORTS – all partiesknown to each other and review reports are publicOPEN FINAL-VERSION COMMENTING – review orcommenting on final “version of record” publications
Global State of Peer Review—7THE ROLE OF THE EDITORRegardless of the type ofpeer review, it’s importantto acknowledge the role ofjournal editors in the process.The editor-in-chief sets the vision anddirection of a journal, and editors make criticaldecisions about whether to publish a paperor not. They are the final arbiters in thequestion of whether a paper contains soundresearch and/or meets the criteria of thejournal in question. This can be a challengingjob when presented with conflicting opinionsfrom multiple reviewers and authors.Editors also do the hard work of selectingreviewers and sourcing reviews. Without them,it is unlikely that all manuscripts — particularlythe tricky ones — would be reviewed. The hardwork that goes on behind the scenes to makethis happen is often forgotten in discussionsabout new peer review or publishing models.The role of an editor is often a thanklessone. But, it is a crucial part of the peerreview process.
Global State of Peer Review—8WHY IS PEER REVIEWSO IMPORTANT?Peer reviewers and editorsare gatekeepers of theresearch literature used todocument and communicatehuman discovery.FIG.4 — GROWTH INPUBLISHED RESEARCHINDEXED IN WEB OFSCIENCE, 1980–2017Data source: Web of Science.Notwithstanding these problems, peer reviewhas done a remarkable job of scaling andallowing us to develop a trusted corpus ofresearch literature as the academic researchprocess industrialized, and then digitized,in the 20 th century. This is evidenced bythe dramatic increase in peer reviewedpublication output since 1980 (see Figure 4).Annual growth inpublished article volumesince 2013 (excl. 2017)232.6%1Documents in the Web of Science Core Collection (millions)Reviewers and editors work hard to ensurethat only sound research is published.Where there are problems in research(slowing publication times, rising articleretractions, predatory publishing),peer review is often at their root.Number of articles indexedin Web of Science from 1980to 2017. The dip in 2017 isbecause, at the time these datawere extracted, not all contentfor 2017 had been received andindexed. Note that part of therapid increase in early-to-mid2000 can be attributed toan expansion of the Webof Science index.19801990200020102017
Global State of Peer ReviewSince 2013, article publication volumeshave grown by 2.6% per year whilesubmissions have grown by 6.1% per year.The world of research is now so large,varied, and geographically diverse thatfew editors have the breadth and depthof knowledge or the networks necessaryto evaluate all submissions themselves.Outsourcing to expert peer reviewersis essential if an editor is to make aninformed publication decision.—FIG.5 — TOP FIVE REGIONS BYPUBLICATION OUTPUT IN 2017Data source: Web of ScienceArticles indexed in Web of Science in 2017. Percentagesrepresent at least one affiliation on publication.0%10%20% 30%HOW IMPORTANT IS PEERREVIEW TO RESEARCHERS?Importantly, our survey shows thatresearchers continue to regard peer reviewas a critical tool for ensuring the qualityand integrity of the literature.INDIA 4.3%GERMANY 6.0%FIG.6 — HOW RESEARCHERS REGARD PEER REVIEWUK 7.5%Data source: Publons’ 2018 Global Reviewer Survey 98% ofrespondents consider peer review either important (31.2%)or extremely important (66.8%) for ensuring the generalquality and integrity of scholarly communication.CHINA 15.5%US 25.1%31.2%IMPORTANTEXTREMELYIMPORTANTUNIMPORTANT 0.8%EXTREMELY UNIMPORTANT 0.4%NOT SURE/DON’T KNOW 0.8%966.8%
Global State of Peer Review—10INCENTIVES MATTERPublishing peer reviewedresearch has become thekey indicator of researchoutput and impact.This is largely because the standards upheldby peer review mean that only researchscrutinized by peers, and therefore meetingsome quality threshold, is published.Consequently, funding, hiring, andpromotion decisions are often tiedto published research records.When combined with shrinking researchbudgets, it is no surprise that researchers areincreasingly desperate to publish and publishfast. The entire community recognizes this.FIG.7 — TOP FOUR ACHIEVEMENTS MOSTCOMMONLY CITED AS BEING IMPORTANTTO OVERALL CAREER SUCCESSData source: Publons’ 2018 Global Reviewer SurveyRespondents identified the following factors ascontributing most to overall career success from a listof 12 options: “getting published in respected journals”;“ being highly cited in respected journals”; “securinggrant funding”; and “general research, teaching oradministrative work”.BEING HIGHLYCITED INRESPECTEDJOURNALS27%BEINGPUBLISHEDIN RESPECTEDJOURNALS53.4%ASIDE As incentives drive researchers to publishas much as possible, some researchershave resorted to chopping results intosmaller and smaller papers. This processis called salami slicing. I n physics, where electrons, photons, andgluons are discussed daily, the minimumunit of publishable material — the thinnestpossible salami slice — is referred toas the “publon”. This is where the name“Publons” comes from.GENERALRESEARCH,TEACHING ORADMINISTRATIVEWORK 18.8%SECURINGGRANT FUNDING35.9%“ENSURING THE INTEGRITYOF THE PEER REVIEWPROCESS IS VITAL AND ANINCREASING CHALLENGE THATWE CANNOT FAIL TO MEET.”TAMI POTTEN, EDITORIAL DEVELOPMENTMANAGER, BRITISH INSTITUTE OF RADIOLOGY
Global State of Peer ReviewIt is clearly important (andlucrative) for researchersto publish peer reviewedarticles and to act aseditors for journals.Historically, however, there has been noequivalent reward or incentive for peerreviewing. Researchers overwhelminglybelieve there should be.84.8%of survey respondents think institutionsshould more explicitly require andrecognize peer review contributionsFIG.8 — PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE ROLE OFINSTITUTIONS IN RECOGNIZING PEER REVIEWData source: Publons’ 2018 Global Reviewer Survey—11
Global State of Peer ReviewWHY DO RESEARCHERSCHOOSE TO PEER REVIEW?Despite comparatively weakincentives and recognition,peer review does happen.So why do researchers giveup valuable research andteaching time to contribute?What motivates them?Researchers see peer reviewing as partof their job, something they should reciprocate,and as a necessary part of contributing tothe integrity of the published literature.They are also quite aware that it is a valuableway to stay up-to-date with research trendsin their field.Differences are observed across researchfields within the dataset: Roughly 50% of researchers in Physics,Mathematics, Neuroscience, and SpaceScience cited “reviewing is part of my job”as the reason they review, while only 30%of respondents in Clinical Medicine gavepriority to this response. I nstead, most reviewers in ClinicalMedicine cited “to improve my ownwriting skills” as the most commonreason they chose to peer review.FIG.9 — WHY RESEARCHERS PEER REVIEWData source: Publons’ 2018 Global Reviewer SurveyRespondents were asked to select up to tworeasons from a list of nine �12IT’S PART OF MY JOBAS A RESEARCHERDO MY FAIR SHARE /RECIPROCATEFOR REVIEWSOF MY WORKKEEP UP-TO-DATEWITH THE LATESTRESEARCH TRENDSIN MY FIELDENSURE THE QUALITY& INTEGRITYOF RESEARCHPUBLISHEDIN MY FIELDVOLUNTARYSERVICE TO MYFIELD / RESEARCHCOMMUNITYDEVELOP PERSONALREPUTATION& CAREERPROGRESSIONIMPROVE MY OWNWRITING SKILLSBUILDRELATIONSHIPSWITH JOURNALS/ EDITORS
Global State of Peer Review—PREVIOUS RESEARCHON PEER REVIEWHistorically, studies of peerreview have been hindered bythe very nature of the process.Single-blind peer reviews are not publishedand the name of the reviewer is not revealed,making it very difficult to do large-scale,cross-publisher studies of the peer reviewprocess. This has led to a rather complexand incomplete picture of peer review, andproduced little overall consensus fromthe research community on key concerns,including transparency, accountability,and editorial bias.Thankfully, this is slowly changing.Researchers and publishers alike have beenable to draw back the curtain on peer reviewin recent years as more and more scholarlycommunications systems move online. Also,open peer review, which is increasingly viewedacross the industry as an important aspect ofopen science, has enabled a wealth of diverseresearch, helping the scholarly communitycollectively weigh up and scrutinize the variousstages of the peer review process. This shifthas led to a number of fundamental studiesand initiatives over the past decade.While we cannot acknowledge all of thesehere, we would like to recognize some ofthe large-scale surveys that have engagedwith peer reviewers to inform this work.Like ours here today, most of these surveyswere created in consultation with editorsand publishers, and used to garner anunderstanding of reviewers’ experiencesand needs, with the ultimate goal of openingup and improving the future of the system: Sense About Science Peer ReviewSurvey, 2009 Wiley Peer Review Study, 2016 P ublishing Research ConsortiumPeer Review Survey, 2015 PRE (AAAS) Survey, 2016 P eer Review: A Global View,a Taylor & Francis survey, 201513
Global State of Peer Review1—14WHO ISDOING THEREVIEW?In order to understandpeer review, it is necessaryto understand who iscontributing to the peerreview process.This chapter explores who is doing the reviewby region, research field, and gender. TheReview Distribution Index is presented, givinga measure of how the reviewing effort isdistributed within research areas and regions.These data provide a basis for investigationinto issues such as potential bias anddistribution of the peer review workload.KEY FINDINGS USA dominates absolute contributionsto peer review, contributing 32.9%of all reviews compared to 25.4%of published article output. C hina reviews substantially less(8.8%) than its article output (13.8%)would predict. E stablished regions review more thanemerging regions relativeto their respective article outputs. E ditors are disproportionately selectedfrom established regions. E ditors disproportionately selectreviewers from their own region. A bsolute review contributions are growingin all regions, but more rapidly in emergingregions. China, in particular, is rapidlyincreasing review output. T here are few studies of gender in peerreview, but early indications are that maleparticipation is higher than female.
Global State of Peer Review—15SUPPLY AND DEMAND OFPEER REVIEW, BY REGIONWhen a researcher submitsa manuscript to a journalthey create demand for peerreview. When a researchercompletes a review they aresupplying peer review.FIG.10 — PEER REVIEW SUPPLYAND DEMAND, BY REGIONData source: ScholarOneThe total number of completed reviews(left axis) and submitted manuscripts(right axis) across 20 selected regions.Reviews 2013–2017: Supply: Reviews completed Demand: Manuscripts submitted107.5Demand for reviews URKEYNETHERLANDSSOUTH MANYJAPANUKCHINAUSA00Supply of reviews (millions)202512.5Figure 10 presents the supply and demandof reviews by region. USA supplies by farthe most reviews. China ranks second,producing almost exactly as many reviews asthe UK, despite creating more than twice thedemand through manuscript submissions.Emerging regions such as India, Turkey, andIran, all review substantially less than theirmanuscript submissions would suggest.
Global State of Peer ReviewTo further investigate relative review rates, thenumber of reviews a region has contributedper submitted manuscript has been chartedagainst the number of publications that regioncontributed between 2013–17.On the right are China and USAthe global research powerhouses.–—16In the bottom third are the nine emergingregions . These regions peer review less thantheir article output suggests. Together, theemerging regions accounted for 29.3% of Webof Science articles but performed just 18.9%of ScholarOne reviews between 2013–2017.In the top two thirds of the chart are the 11established regions that dominate the peerreview process. Together they accounted for66.1% of articles in Web of Science and 68.1%of ScholarOne reviews between 2013–2017.FIG
State of Peer Review report has been developed to investigate the state of scholarly journal peer review. To do that, we have focused on four big questions, each of which form a chapter in this report. 1. Who is doing the review? 2. How efficient is the peer review process? 3. What do we know about peer review quality? 4. What does the future hold?
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
California Turtle & Tortoise Club founded in 1964 and dedicated to Turtle & Tortoise Preservation, Conservation and Education The Brazilian Giant Tortoise by M. A. Cohen Adult female yellow-footed tortoise, Chelonoidis denticulata measuring 17 inches (43 ccentimeters) in carapace
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
The Desert tortoise (Gopherus sp.) was formally reported to science in 1861, and became the official California state reptile in 1972. Recent studies reveal three species, the Mojave desert tortoise (G. agassizii), Sonoran Desert tortoise (G. morafkai), and Sinaloan desert tortoise (G. evgoodei) (Murphy et al. 2011, Edwards et al. 2016; Figure 1).). Range-wide declines in
