Editorial Matter 1996

Ordering Information Permission to Copy Instructions to Contributors for the 1996 Volume Reviewers for the 1996 Volume Foreword, by Laurie Richlin Mission Statement Membership, Conference and Programs Information Content

Editorial Matter 1995

Ordering Information Permission to Copy Instructions to Contributors for the 1996 Volume Reviewers for the 1995 Volume Foreword, by Ed Neal Mission Statement Membership Conference and Programs Contents List of Contributors About PO

Editorial Matter 1997

Ordering Information Permission to Copy Instructions to Contributors for the 1998 Volume Reviewers for the 1997 Volume Mission Statement Membership, Conference and Programs Information Contents Foreword, by Deborah DeZure Introduction, by Deborah DeZure About PO

Transparency of peer review process in Croatian OA journals

Research needs to be peer reviewed transparently so readers may have more confidence on objective and unbiased peer review, and consequently more trust in the accuracy of the published research studies. In spite of the numerous critics peer review still serves as the primary quality assurance system in scholarly journals. The objective of this study was to identify whether there is a need to develop instructions for peer reviewers which will make peer review process more transparent and instructions more helpful to reviewers. We conducted a content analysis of 84 available instructions for peer reviewers from the HRČAK portal for Croatian Open Access (OA) journals with more than 350 OA journals at the present. A non-validated categorization scheme for coding text was developed containing 3 main categories, information about reviewer, peer review, and submitted manuscript. In order to cover each category well 11 subcategories were added at first, 18 at second, and 2 at third hierarchical level. Subcategories included in total 269 words, phrases and rules. Coding unit (case) was a document in PDF or DOC format, containing instructions for reviewers for the specific journal in English or Croatian language. Results were expressed as frequencies, case occurrences, and percentages. There is limited guidance and no consensus regarding the optimal content and structure of the instructions for peer reviewers. Among 84 instructions of Croatian OA journals, 64 are just reviewer forms without explanations and meaning of stated questions, or instructions in which way should reviewers provide answers to them. The most present category was information about manuscript (83/84), with manuscript elements (title, abstract, introduction, methods, discussion, conclusion, and acknowledgement) as most frequent subcategory (82/84). Research data (raw data, underlying data) were not mentioned in a single instruction. Information about reviewer was present in the majority of instructions (79/84), with reviewers' comments and suggestions as most frequent terms (50/84 and 45/84 accordingly). It was surprise that peer review was the least represented category in the instructions for peer reviewers (71/84). Among peer review subcategories the most present was about revision results (accepted, rejected...)(66/84), while subcategories peer review types (blind, anonymous, open...), peer review process (confidentiality, fairness, unbiasedness...) and ethical issues (authorship, misconduct, redundancy, plagiarism...) were represented poorly (22-28/84). Croatian OA journals are not recognizing the importance of peer review and the transparency of the whole process. Among approximately 350 Croatian OA journals we found only 84 instructions for reviewers in English or Croatian language. The majority of key peer review issues are poorly reported in the survey of instructions for peer reviewers. Peer review process in the majority of the Croatian OA journals is not transparent. Also open peer review is not accepted by Croatian journals. Our findings highlight the need for raising awareness about the importance of transparency of peer review, and clear and consistent peer review guidelines

Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications

Obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly competitive, as funding success rates have declined over the past decade. To allocate relatively scarce funds, scientific peer reviewers must differentiate the very best applications from comparatively weaker ones. Despite the importance of this determination, little research has explored how reviewers assign ratings to the applications they review and whether there is consistency in the reviewers’ evaluation of the same application. Replicating all aspects of the NIH peer-review process, we examined 43 individual reviewers’ ratings and written critiques of the same group of 25 NIH grant applications. Results showed no agreement among reviewers regarding the quality of the applications in either their qualitative or quantitative evaluations. Although all reviewers received the same instructions on how to rate applications and format their written critiques, we also found no agreement in how reviewers “translated” a given number of strengths and weaknesses into a numeric rating. It appeared that the outcome of the grant review depended more on the reviewer to whom the grant was assigned than the research proposed in the grant. This research replicates the NIH peer-review process to examine in detail the qualitative and quantitative judgments of different reviewers examining the same application, and our results have broad relevance for scientific grant peer review

New Issues for New Methods: Ethical and Editorial Challenges for an Experimental Philosophy

This paper examines a constellation of ethical and editorial issues that have arisen since philosophers started to conduct, submit and publish empirical research. These issues encompass concerns over responsible authorship, fair treatment of human subjects, ethicality of experimental procedures, availability of data, unselective reporting and publishability of research findings. This study aims to assess whether the philosophical community has as yet successfully addressed such issues. To do so, the instructions for authors, submission process and published research papers of 29 main journals in philosophy have been considered and analyzed. In light of the evidence reported here, it is argued that the philosophical community has as yet failed to properly tackle such issues. The paper also delivers some recommendations for authors, reviewers and editors in the field

Taking advantage of unexpected WebCONSORT results

To estimate treatment effects, trials are initiated by randomising patients to the interventions under study and finish by comparing patient evolution. In order to improve the trial report, the CONSORT statement provides authors and peer reviewers with a guide of the essential items that would allow research replication. Additionally, WebCONSORT aims to facilitate author reporting by providing the items from the different CONSORT extensions that are relevant to the trial being reported. WebCONSORT has been estimated to improve the proportion of reported items by 0.04 (95% CI, –0.02 to 0.10), interpreted as “no important difference”, in accordance with the scheduled desired scenario of a 0.15 effect size improvement. However, in a non-scheduled analysis, it was found that, despite clear instructions, around a third of manuscripts selected for trials by the editorial staff were not actually randomised trials. We argue that surprises benefit science, and that further research should be conducted in order to improve the performance of editorial staff.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Peer-review process in journals dealing with chemistry and related subjects published in Serbia

A survey was conducted among editors of journals publishing in the field of chemistry, chemical technology and related topics in Serbia, aiming to collect information on their experience, problems and difficulties during peer-review process. Editors from 22 journals out of 27 that regularly published during 2015 replied. General data on journals were collected from responses obtained from editors-in-chief, whereas all editors (including sub-editors and section editors) participated in a questionnaire concerning peer-review procedure. Additionally, they were asked to evaluate quality of reports and attitude of reviewers, discuss present situation and suggest measures to improve peer-review process. The greatest problems encountered by editors in peer-review process can be summarized as follows: low rate of acceptance to review, low quality of reports, sometimes due to the reviewer's bias or their inability to properly understand the review process. A method used to search for reviewers does not substantially influence the quality of reports. Editors agree that introduction of On-Line processes and creation of precise instructions for reviewers, education of potential reviewers, as well as social, public and professional recognition and appreciation of reviewers' work, are the most important measures to improve the quality of the peer-review process and, consecutively, the quality of published articles and journals

Overburdening of peer review: A multi-stakeholder perspective on causes and effects

Peer review of manuscripts is labour-intensive and time-consuming. Individual reviewers might feel themselves overburdened with the amount of reviewing they are requested to do. Aiming to explore how stakeholder groups perceive reviewing burden and what they believe to be the causes of a potential overburdening of reviewers, we conducted focus groups with early-, mid-, and senior career scholars, editors, and publishers. By means of a thematic analysis, we aimed to identify the causes of overburdening of reviewers. First, we show that, across disciplines and roles, stakeholders believed that the reviewing burden is distributed unequally across members of the academic community, resulting in the overburdening of small groups of reviewers. Second, stakeholders believed this to be caused by (i) an increase in manuscript submissions; (ii) inefficient manuscript handling; (iii) lack of institutionalization of peer review; (iv) lack of reviewing instructions and (v) inadequate reviewer recruiting strategies. These themes were assumed to relate to an inadequate incentive structure in academia that favours publications over peer review. In order to alleviate reviewing burden, a holistic approach is required that addresses both the increased demand for and the insufficient supply of reviewing resources