Key data

TFEMPTeam

Peer Review 2015

Peer review in 2015

A global view

Key survey data from Taylor & Francis

OCTOBER 2015

© 2015 Taylor & Francis Group CC-BY-NC


Contents

All Respondents

The purpose of peer review ................................................................................... 2

Ethics in peer review ............................................................................................ 11

Screening Question ............................................................................................. 16

Authors ........................................................................................................... 17

3 The process of peer review ................................................................................. 18

Different peer review models ............................................................................... 22

Reviewers ..................................................................................................... 24

The process of peer review................................................................................... 25

Different peer review models ................................................................................ 31

Editors.............................................................................................................. 34

The process of peer review .................................................................................. 35

Different peer review models................................................................................. 41

Demographics........................................................................................... 45

Authors................................................................................................................... 46

Reviewers............................................................................................................... 48

Editors.................................................................................................................... 50

Introduction

Within the academic community, peer review is widely recognized as

being at the heart of scholarly research. However, faith in peer review’s

integrity is of ongoing and increasing concern to many. It is imperative

that publishers (and academic editors) of peer-reviewed scholarly

research learn from each other, working together to improve practices

in areas such as ethical issues, training, and data transparency.

The survey data included here forms part of the

research conducted by Taylor & Francis in early 2015,

which is presented in the white paper ‘Peer Review

in 2015: A global view’ (available on authorservices.

taylorandfrancis.com). The white paper was researched

and compiled to assist in the goal outlined above,

presenting survey results and focus group findings from

one of the largest international research studies on peer

review in recent years.

Survey methodology, responses and notes

The research presented here forms part of an online

survey, with responses from researchers who have

published in Taylor & Francis or Routledge journals.

We contacted researchers who published with Taylor

& Francis in 2013, so that many would also be able to

offer recent experiences ranging across many different

publishers, reflecting the diverse publishing experience

of today’s research community. Their responses were

then compared to a smaller sample of researchers

from lists provided by Thomson Reuters, to ensure the

results were truly representative.

Wherever technical terminology was used in the

survey relating to peer review models, definition boxes

were given alongside. Multiple item list order was

randomized for each respondent, in order to avoid the

effect of order-bias.

Survey data key

The sections colored blue were answered by

all respondents.

The sections colored pink were answered by

those who identified themselves as authors on

the screening question (Q12).

The sections colored orange were answered

by those who identified themselves as

reviewers and authors on the screening

question (Q12).

The sections colored yellow were answered

by those who identified themselves as

journal editors, reviewers and authors on the

screening question (Q12).

PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER) INTRODUCTION 1


1

Purpose of peer review

1

Purpose of peer review

Q1

1 Purpose of Peer Review

Q1

As an author, thinking about your most recently published

article,

As an author,

please

thinking

rate

about

how

your

beneficial

most recently published

the peer

article...

review process was to

improving your article

Please rate how beneficial the peer review process was to improving your article:

Q2

1 Please rate how Purpose strongly of you Peer agree Review or disagree with each of the

following statements

1 Purpose of Peer Review

Q2

Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

1 Purpose of Peer Review

1 – not at all beneficial to 10 – very beneficial

Q2

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

HSS

STM

Q1 As an author, thinking Humanities about your most and recently Social published Science article... Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60%

Please rate how beneficial the peer review process was to improving your article:

80% 100%

Please rate how beneficial the peer review

process was to improving your article 1 – not at 17% all beneficial 13% to 10 – very 25% beneficial 21% 9% 6%

[n = 4,613]

10 - very beneficial 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - not at all beneficial

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Please rate how beneficial the peer review

process was to improving Scientific, your articleTechnical 17% and 13% Medical Researchers

25% 21% 9% 6%

[n = 4,613]

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Please 10 rate - very how beneficial the peer 9 review 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - not at all beneficial

process was to improving your article 18% 14% 24% 19% 9% 6%

[n = 2,717]

10 - very beneficial 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - not at all beneficial

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Please rate how beneficial the peer review

process was to improving your article

[n = 2,717]

18% 14% 24% 19% 9% 6%

10 - very beneficial 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - not at all beneficial

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Scholarly communication Humanities is greatly and Social Science Researchers

helped by peer review of published 0% 22% 20% 17% 40% 22% 60% 17% 80% 9% 6%

papers [n = 4,552]

100%

Researchers

Scholarly communication

can have confidence

is greatly

in

helped by peer review of published 22% 17% 22% 17% 9% 6%

the academic rigour of published

papers [n = 4,552]

14% 14% 22% 20% 11% 8%

articles because of the peer review

Researchers

process

can

[n

have

= 4,528]

confidence in

the academic rigour of published

articles

10 -

because

strongly

of

agree

the peer review

9 8

process [n = 4,528]

14% 7 614%

5 22% 4 3 20%

1 - strongly 11% 8% disagree

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Scholarly communication Scientific, is greatly Technical and Medical Researchers

helped by peer review of published 0% 22% 20% 17% 40% 23% 60% 16% 80% 8% 8%

papers [n = 2718]

100%

Researchers

Scholarly communication

can have confidence

is greatly

in

helped by peer review of published 22% 17% 23% 16% 8% 8%

the academic rigour of published

papers [n = 2718]

15% 15% 22% 16% 11% 9%

articles because of the peer review

Researchers

process

can

[n

have

= 2657]

confidence in

the academic rigour of published

articles

10 -

because

strongly

of

agree

the peer review

9 8

process [n = 2657]

15% 7 6 15% 5 422%

3 216%

1 - 11% strongly 9% disagree

HSS STM

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

2 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

PURPOSE OF PEER REVIEW 3


1

Q3

1 Purpose of Peer Review

Purpose of peer review

The function of peer review in an ideal world.

Q3

HSS

This question is about the function of peer review in an ideal world.

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following

objectives review: should be the purpose of peer review

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following objectives should be the purpose of peer

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

1

Q3

1 Purpose of Peer Review

Q3

STM

Purpose of peer review

The function of peer review in an ideal world.

This question is about the function of peer review in an ideal world.

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following

objectives review: should be the purpose of peer review

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following objectives should be the purpose of peer

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Improve the quality of the published paper [n = 4,587]

42%

22%

19%

8%

Check for an appropriate and robust methodology

[n = 2,718]

33%

26%

21%

9%

Check for an appropriate and robust methodology

[n = 4,595]

38%

24%

21%

9%

Improve the quality of the published paper [n = 2,722]

36%

24%

19%

11%

HSS

Provide polite feedback in all circumstances [n = 4,593]

Highlight omissions in the content of the article

[n = 4,591]

25%

45%

23%

18%

26%

14%

8% 5%

14% 6%

Make a judgement about the novelty of the manuscript [n =

2,718]

Provide polite feedback in all circumstances [n = 2,717]

25%

38%

24%

19%

24%

16%

12%

11%

6%

STM

Determine the importance of the findings [n = 4,581]

24%

22%

24%

13%

6%

Determine the importance of the findings [n = 2,708]

25%

25%

24%

12%

6%

Suggest changes to improve the readability of the article

[n = 4,605]

25%

21%

23%

14%

7%

Check the factual accuracy of a manuscript [n = 2,705]

30%

23%

19%

11%

6% 6%

Select the best manuscripts for the journal [n = 4,602]

29%

19%

19%

11%

7% 6%

Suggest changes to improve the readability of the article [n

= 2,718]

26%

23%

22%

13%

7%

Make a judgement about the novelty of the manuscript [n

= 4,604]

21%

21%

24%

15%

8%

6%

Highlight omissions in the content of the article

[n = 2,701]

23%

23%

23%

14%

7%

Determine whether the article is relevant to the journal's

aims and scope [n = 4,596]

26%

19%

20%

12%

8%

6%

Detect academic fraud [n = 2,706]

34%

18%

16%

9%

7%

6%

Check the factual accuracy of a manuscript [n = 4,596]

22%

18%

20%

14%

8%

8%

Determine whether the article is relevant to the journal's

aims and scope [n = 2,725]

25%

19%

21%

13%

7%

6%

Detect academic fraud [n = 4,593]

28%

14%

16%

12%

8%

9%

Select the best manuscripts for the journal [n = 2,710]

24%

19%

18%

12%

8%

8%

Detect plagiarism [n = 4,593]

23%

13%

15%

13%

9%

10%

Detect plagiarism [n = 2,704]

29%

16%

16%

11%

8%

8%

Indicate that translations require refinement (suggest

language polishing) [n = 4,568]

12%

13%

19%

15%

11%

11%

6% 6%

Indicate that translations require refinement (suggest

language polishing) [n = 2,684]

15%

15%

19%

16%

12%

9%

Indicate that spelling, grammar and punctuation mistakes

require correction (suggest sub-editing) [n = 4,604]

13%

12%

16%

14%

11%

11%

6% 7%

Indicate that spelling, grammar and punctuation mistakes

require correction (suggest sub-editing) [n = 2,688]

16%

15%

17%

14%

10%

10%

6%

Refine the translation (carry out language polishing)

[n = 4,555]

6%

10%

11%

11%

11%

10%

11%

11%

15%

Correct instances of spelling, grammar and punctuation

mistakes (carry out sub-editing) [n = 2,695]

11%

10%

13%

12%

11%

10%

7%

9%

7%

9%

Correct instances of spelling, grammar and punctuation

mistakes (carry out sub-editing) [n = 4,586]

6% 6%

8%

10%

10%

12%

9%

12%

12%

16%

Refine the translation (carry out language polishing)

[n = 2,684]

9%

10%

13%

12%

12%

12%

7%

9%

8%

10%

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 7

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 8

4 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

PURPOSE OF PEER REVIEW 5


1

Q4

1 Purpose of Peer Review

Purpose of peer review

The function of peer review in the real world.

Q4

HSS

This question is about the function of peer review in the real world.

Based on your experience with peer review, to what

extent currently do achieving you agree the following or objectives disagree effectively: that peer review is currently

achieving the following objectives effectively

Based on your experience with peer review, to what extent do you agree or disagree that peer review is

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

1

Q4

1 Purpose of Peer Review

Q4

STM

Purpose of peer review

The function of peer review in the real world.

This question is about the function of peer review in the real world.

Based on your experience with peer review, to what

extent do you agree or disagree that peer review is currently

achieving the following objectives effectively

Based on your experience with peer review, to what extent do you agree or disagree that peer review is

currently achieving the following objectives effectively:

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Improve the quality of the published paper

[n = 4,578]

17%

22%

25%

17%

9%

Improve the quality of the published paper

[n = 2,706]

19%

20%

21%

18%

8%

7%

HSS

Determine whether the article is relevant

to the journal's aims and scope [n = 4,579]

Check for an appropriate and robust

methodology [n = 4,576]

16%

13%

19%

18%

22%

26%

16%

18%

10%

10%

9%

8%

Determine whether the article is relevant

to the journal's aims and scope [n = 2,708]

Make a judgement about the novelty of the

manuscript [n = 2,715]

17%

16%

19%

17%

22%

25%

14%

17%

10%

11%

8%

8%

STM

Suggest changes to improve the readability

of the article [n = 4,567]

12%

17%

24%

19%

11%

8%

Suggest changes to improve the readability

of the article [n = 2,701]

15%

16%

24%

18%

11%

9%

Determine the importance of the findings

[n = 4,566]

10%

17%

26%

19%

11%

9%

Determine the importance of the findings

[n = 2,702]

16%

16%

23%

17%

12%

8%

Highlight omissions in the content of the

article [n = 4,569]

10%

17%

25%

21%

11%

9%

Check for an appropriate and robust

methodology [n = 2,710]

15%

14%

24%

18%

12%

9%

Make a judgement about the novelty of the

manuscript [n = 4,578]

11%

17%

24%

19%

11%

10%

Provide polite feedback in all circumstances

[n = 2,707]

15%

14%

19%

14%

11%

11%

6%

Select the best manuscripts for the journal

[n = 4,573]

11%

14%

21%

18%

12%

12%

Check the factual accuracy of the

manuscript [n = 2,701]

13%

15%

20%

15%

9%

13%

6%

Provide polite feedback in all circumstances

[n = 4,584]

10%

12%

16%

17%

12%

12%

7%

6%

Highlight omissions in the content of the

article [n = 2,693]

11%

15%

21%

19%

13%

12%

Check the factual accuracy of the

manuscript

[n = 4,559]

7%

10%

15%

17%

13%

16%

7%

7%

Select the best manuscripts for the journal

[n = 2,696]

12%

14%

16%

17%

14%

11%

6%

Detect academic fraud [n = 4,524]

7%

8%

12%

13%

11%

19%

8%

9%

8%

Detect academic fraud [n = 2,689]

14%

11%

14%

13%

12%

12%

7%

5%

6%

Detect plagiarism [n = 4,520]

8%

8%

11%

13%

11%

20%

8%

9%

7%

Detect plagiarism [n = 2,689]

15%

11%

12%

13%

11%

16%

7%

6%

6%

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 9

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 10

6 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

PURPOSE OF PEER REVIEW 7


1

Purpose of peer review

1 Purpose of Peer Review

1

Purpose of peer review

2 Ethics

Q5

Q5

To what extent does peer review currently involve

To what extent does peer review currently involve the following:

the following

1 – to a very small extent to 10 – to a very great extent

Q6

Q6

HSS

In your In opinion, your how opinion, common do how you think common the following do situations you think are the the peer review following process?

situations are in the peer review process?

1 – extremely rare to 10 – extremely common

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

HSS

Indicating that spelling, grammar and

punctuation mistakes require correction

(suggesting sub-editing) [n = 4,587]

8%

10%

17%

17%

13%

12%

7%

7%

Indicating that translations require

refinement (suggesting language polishing)

[n = 4,544]

6%

9%

15%

17%

13%

15%

7%

7%

6%

5%

Correcting instances of spelling, grammar

and punctuation mistakes (carrying out

sub-editing) [n = 4,579]

Refining the translation (carrying out

language polishing) [n = 4,538]

6%

10%

13%

13%

9%

12%

12%

13%

8%

11%

15%

9%

12%

10%

11%

10%

12%

10 - to a very great extent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - to a very small extent

Authors who hold a more senior position in

their field are more likely to be published in a

journal than authors in a more junior position

[n = 4,025]

Authors from particular regions of the world

are more likely to be accepted for publication

in a journal than authors from other regions

of the world [n = 4,027]

Reviewers give unduly positive reviews to

authors they know, in the knowledge that

they will receive unduly positive reviews in

return to ensure their own work is published

[n = 3,998]

Reviewers who are competitors within the

same field delay their assessment in order to

increase the likelihood of their own research

being published first [n = 3,988]

12%

7%

18%

7%

10%

8%

9%

10%

16%

15%

11%

9%

17%

12%

15%

19%

16%

15%

11%

9%

8%

9%

13%

13%

12%

10%

7%

13%

11%

7%

7%

9%

HSS

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Reviewers who are competitors within the

same field take the ideas from papers they are

reviewing and use them in their own research

[n = 3,993]

7%

10%

10%

18%

11%

14%

13%

9%

STM

Indicating that spelling, grammar and

punctuation mistakes require correction

(suggesting sub-editing) [n = 2,726]

Indicating that translations require

refinement (suggesting language polishing)

[n = 2,715]

Correcting instances of spelling, grammar

and punctuation mistakes (carrying out

sub-editing) [n = 2,719]

8%

7%

11%

11%

17%

16%

10%

11%

15%

17%

16%

16%

16%

17%

12%

13%

13%

10%

6%

7%

6%

7%

10%

6%

Authors of one gender (either male or

female) are more likely to be accepted for

publication in a journal than authors of the

other gender [n = 4,027]

Reviewers conduct reviews under false

identities [n = 3,970]

12%

7%

10 - extremely common 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - extremely rare

6%

16%

11%

6%

23%

13%

16%

41%

27%

Refining the translation (carrying out

language polishing) [n = 2,713]

8%

13%

14%

13%

15%

10%

10%

7% 7%

10 - to a very great extent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - to a very small extent

Page 12

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 11

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass

8 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

PURPOSE OF PEER REVIEW 9


1

Purpose of peer review

2 Ethics

2

Ethics in peer review

2 Ethics

Ethics

All

All

respondents

respondents

Q6

Q6

HSS

In your opinion, how common do you think the following

situations are in the peer review process?

In your opinion, how common do you think the following situations are in the peer review process?

1 – extremely rare to 10 – extremely common

Q7

Q7

Q7

Approximately, on what proportion of papers that you have submitted to single blind peer reviewed journals

Approximately, on what proportion on what of papers proportion that you have submitted of papers to single blind that peer you reviewed have journals

have you taken the following actions?

have you taken the following actions?

submitted to single blind peer reviewed journals have you

taken the following actions?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% (This does not apply

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% (This does not apply

to me)

to me)

STM

Authors who hold a more senior position in

their field are more likely to be published in a

journal than authors in a more junior position

[n = 2,425]

Authors from particular regions of the world

are more likely to be accepted for publication

in a journal than authors from other regions

of the world [n = 2,428]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

11%

18%

9%

13%

13%

17%

13%

11%

15%

11%

9%

6%

9%

7%

8%

10%

Requested that my paper is not reviewed by academics

from

Requested

certain

that

institutions,

my paper

who

is not

are

reviewed

known to

by

be

academics

working

from certain institutions,

on similar research

who are

[n

known

= 490]

to be working

on similar research [n 490]

Switched the lead-author with a co-author who is more

senior,

Switched

in

the

order

lead-author

to increase

with

the likelihood

co-author

of

who

publication

is more

senior, in order to increase

[n =

the

394]

likelihood of publication

[n 394]

Switched my main institutional affiliation to a secondary

institutional

Switched my

affiliation

main institutional

in a different

affiliation

region

to

of the

secondary

world, in

institutional

order to increase

affiliation

the

in

likelihood different

of

region

publication

of the

[n

world,

= 230]

in

order to increase the likelihood of publication [n 230]

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

12%

12%

49%

49%

39%

39%

10%

10%

51%

51%

40%

40%

7%

7%

52%

52%

41%

41%

HSS

Reviewers give unduly positive reviews to

authors they know, in the knowledge that

they will receive unduly positive reviews in

return to ensure their own work is published

[n = 2,407]

Reviewers who are competitors within the

same field delay their assessment in order to

increase the likelihood of their own research

being published first [n = 2,413]

8%

7%

8%

7%

11%

10%

12%

12%

11%

12%

15%

15%

8%

7%

10%

11%

11%

10%

8%

10%

Used only the initials of my first name in order to avoid

Used

revealing

only the

what

initials

part of

of

the

my

world

first name

I am

in

from

order

[n

to

= 248]

avoid

revealing what part of the world am from [n 248]

Used only the initials of my first name in order to avoid

Used

revealing

only the

whether

initials of

I'm

my

male

first

or

name

female

in order

[n = 297]

to avoid

revealing whether I'm male or female [n 297]

6%

6%

53%

53%

41%

41%

6%

6%

54%

54%

40%

40%

100-10% 0% (This does not apply to me)

100-10% 0% (This does not apply to me)

Reviewers who are competitors within the

same field take the ideas from papers they are

reviewing and use them in their own research

[n = 2,408]

Authors of one gender (either male or

female) are more likely to be accepted for

publication in a journal than authors of the

other gender [n = 2,427]

Reviewers conduct reviews under false

identities [n = 2,386]

6%

6%

9% 12%

11%

11%

10%

10%

11%

16%

17%

22%

9%

11% 12%

43%

36%

9%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Requested that my paper is not reviewed by academics

from

Requested

certain

that

institutions,

my paper

who

is not

are

reviewed

known to

by

be

academics

working

from certain institutions,

on similar research

who are

[n

known

= 788]

to be working

on similar research [n 788]

Switched the lead-author with a co-author who is more

senior,

Switched

in

the

order

lead-author

to increase

with

the likelihood

co-author

of

who

publication

is more

senior, in order to increase

[n =

the

546]

likelihood of publication

[n 546]

Used only the initials of my first name in order to avoid

Used

revealing

only the

whether

initials of

I'm

my

male

first

or

name

female

in order

[n = 440]

to avoid

revealing whether I'm male or female [n 440]

33%

33%

23%

23%

19%

19%

48%

48%

57%

57%

57%

57%

20%

20%

21%

21%

23%

23%

STM

10 - extremely common 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - extremely rare

Used only the initials of my first name in order to avoid

Used

revealing

only the

what

initials

part of

of

the

my

world

first name

I am

in

from

order

[n

to

= 440]

avoid

revealing what part of the world am from [n 440]

Switched my main institutional affiliation to a secondary

institutional

Switched my

affiliation

main institutional

in a different

affiliation

region

to

of the

secondary

world, in

institutional

order to increase

affiliation

the

in

likelihood different

of

region

publication

of the

[n

world,

= 105]

in

order to increase the likelihood of publication [n 105]

18%

18%

17%

17%

59%

59%

60%

60%

23%

23%

23%

23%

100-10%

100-10%

0%

0%

(This does not apply to me)

(This does not apply to me)

Page 13

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 14

2015 Taylor Francis Peer Review Survey Top Level Results INTERNAL REPORT Will Frass 14

10 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

PURPOSE OF PEER REVIEW | ETHICS 11


2

Ethics in peer review

2 Ethics

2 Ethics

All

respondents

All

respondents

2

Ethics in peer review

2 Ethics

2 Ethics

All

respondents

All

respondents

Q8

Q8

Q8

In your opinion, how capable are each of the following types of peer review of preventing discrimination based

on

In

aspects

your

of the

opinion,

author’s identity

how

(such

capable

as gender,

are

nationality

each

or seniority)?

of the following types

of peer review of preventing discrimination based on aspects of

on aspects of the author’s identity (such 1 – totally as gender, incapable nationality to 10 or –very seniority)? capable

the author’s identity (such as gender, nationality or seniority)?

In your opinion, how capable are each of the following types of peer review of preventing discrimination based

1 – totally incapable to 10 –very capable

Q9

Q9

Q9

How capable are each of the following types of peer review of preventing reviewers from delaying their

assessment How of capable a competitor’s are research? each of the following types of peer review

How capable are each of the following types of peer review of preventing reviewers from delaying their

assessment of a competitor’s research? 1 – totally incapable to 10 –very capable

of preventing reviewers from delaying their assessment of a

competitor’s research?

1 – totally incapable to 10 –very capable

HSS

STM

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

80% 100%

Double blind 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

35%

15% 19% 11% 6% 6%

[n = 4,018]

Double blind

35%

15% 19% 11% 6% 6%

Open and [n published = 4,018]

7% 6% 9% 10% 8% 16% 7% 10% 9% 18%

[n = 3,982]

Open and published

7% 6% 9% 10% 8% 16% 7% 10% 9% 18%

Post-publication

[n = 3,982]

5% 5% 6% 8% 7% 17% 8% 11% 11% 21%

[n = 3,962]

Post-publication

5% 5% 6% 8% 7% 17% 8% 11% 11% 21%

[n = 3,962]

Open [n = 3,975] 6% 7% 7% 16% 8% 12% 13%

24%

Open [n = 3,975] 6% 7% 7% 16% 8% 12% 13%

24%

Single blind [n = 4,009] 5% 6% 10% 8% 14% 16%

34%

Single blind [n = 4,009] 5% 6% 10% 8% 14% 16%

34%

10 - very capable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - totally incapable

10 - very capable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - totally incapable

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

80% 100%

Double blind 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

35%

16% 16% 11% 6% 7%

[n = 2,392]

Double blind

35%

16% 16% 11% 6% 7%

Open and [n published = 2,392]

10% 9% 11% 11% 9% 13% 7% 8% 8% 13%

[n = 2,381]

Open and published

10% 9% 11% 11% 9% 13% 7% 8% 8% 13%

Post-publication

[n = 2,381]

9% 8% 10% 10% 9% 16% 6% 9% 9% 14%

[n = 2,372]

Post-publication

9% 8% 10% 10% 9% 16% 6% 9% 9% 14%

[n = 2,372]

Open [n = 2,370] 6% 6% 10% 8% 9% 16% 8% 11% 9% 16%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

80% 100%

Double blind [n = 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

15% 7% 9% 8% 6% 13% 6% 9% 8% 17%

3,924]

Double blind [n =

15% 7% 9% 8% 6% 13% 6% 9% 8% 17%

Post-publication 3,924]

12% 7% 8% 8% 7% 17% 6% 7% 8% 20%

[n = 3,868]

Post-publication

12% 7% 8% 8% 7% 17% 6% 7% 8% 20%

Open [n and = published 3,868]

8% 7% 12% 10% 9% 16% 7% 8% 8% 16%

[n = 3,909]

Open and published

8% 7% 12% 10% 9% 16% 7% 8% 8% 16%

[n = 3,909]

Open [n = 3,877] 5% 4% 9% 10% 10% 18% 8% 9% 9% 19%

Open [n = 3,877] 5% 4% 9% 10% 10% 18% 8% 9% 9% 19%

Single blind [n = 3,916]

12% 6% 11% 16%

38%

Single blind [n = 3,916]

12% 6% 11% 16%

38%

10 - very capable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - totally incapable

10 - very capable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - totally incapable

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

80% 100%

Double blind [n = 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

17% 8% 10% 9% 6% 13% 5% 8% 9% 14%

2,364]

Double blind [n =

17% 8% 10% 9% 6% 13% 5% 8% 9% 14%

Open and 2,364] published

11% 9% 14% 13% 9% 15% 6% 6% 6% 10%

[n = 2,349]

Open and published

11% 9% 14% 13% 9% 15% 6% 6% 6% 10%

Post-publication

[n = 2,349]

13% 8% 11% 10% 9% 17% 5% 7% 7% 14%

[n = 2,344]

Post-publication

13% 8% 11% 10% 9% 17% 5% 7% 7% 14%

[n = 2,344]

Open [n = 2,388] 8% 7% 12% 12% 10% 17% 7% 8% 6% 13%

HSS STM

Open [n = 2,370]

Single blind [n = 2,382]

6%

6%

6%

5%

10%

8%

8%

9%

9%

7%

16%

13% 7%

8%

11%

11%

11%

9%

16%

23%

Open [n = 2,388]

Single blind [n = 2,357]

8% 7%

6% 5% 6%

12%

7%

6%

12%

12%

10%

7%

17%

10%

13%

7%

8%

6%

30%

13%

Single blind [n = 2,382] 6% 5% 8% 9% 7% 13% 7% 11% 11% 23%

10 - very capable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - totally incapable

Single blind [n = 2,357] 6% 5% 6% 7% 6% 12% 7% 10% 13%

30%

10 - very capable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - totally incapable

10 - very capable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - totally incapable

10 - very capable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - totally incapable

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 15

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 16

12 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

ETHICS 13

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 15

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 16


HSS

STM

2

Q10

Ethics in peer review

2 Ethics

2 Ethics

Q10

Q10

How capable are each of the following types of peer review

reviews to authors they know in order to guarantee their own work is treated favourably?

of preventing reviewers from giving overly positive reviews to

authors reviews to authors they they know in order 1 – to totally guarantee to

incapable

guarantee their to own 10 work –very

their is capable treated own favourably? work is

treated favourably 1 – totally incapable to 10 –very capable

respondents

All

respondents

How capable are each of the following types of peer review of preventing reviewers from giving overly positive

How capable are each of the following types of peer review of preventing reviewers from giving overly positive

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Double blind [n = 3,963] 25% 13% 15% 10% 7% 10% 5% 6% 5% 6%

Double blind [n = 3,963]

Open and published

[n = 3,924]

Open and published

Post-publication

[n = 3,924]

[n = 3,871]

Post-publication

[n = 3,871]

Open [n = 3,919]

Open [n = 3,919]

Single blind [n = 3,952]

6%

6%

6%

25%

6% 8%

6%

6%

8%

7%

6% 7%

5% 6%

5%

5%

8%

8%

8%

6%

6% 6%

5% 5%

13%

9%

9%

7%

7%

14%

14%

11% 6%

15%

15%

15%

17%

17%

8%

10%

8%

Single blind [n = 3,952] 4% 5% 5% 5% 11% 6% 10% 16%

35%

10 - very capable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - totally incapable

8%

10%

8%

7%

7%

11%

11%

16%

7%

10%

10%

10%

10%

14%

14%

10%

10%

10%

11%

11%

5%

6% 5%

21%

21%

22%

22%

27%

27%

35%

10 - very capable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - totally incapable

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Double blind [n = 2,382] 25%

13% 14% 10% 7% 10% 4% 5% 5% 7%

Double blind [n = 2,382]

Open and published

[n = 2,366]

Open and published

Post-publication

[n = 2,366]

[n = 2,346]

Post-publication

[n = 2,346]

Open [n = 2,355]

Open [n = 2,355]

Single blind [n = 2,371]

6%

4%

8%

8%

8%

25%

9%

9%

9%

8% 9%

5% 6% 9%

5% 6%

6% 5%

9%

8%

8%

11%

11%

10%

10%

9%

9%

8%

13%

10%

10%

9%

9%

8%

8%

7%

14%

10%

10%

9%

9%

15%

15%

12% 6%

10%

15%

15%

17%

17%

8%

8%

9%

7%

7%

7%

7%

7%

10%

10%

12%

10%

9%

9%

9%

6%

4% 5% 5% 7%

8% 13%

8%

8%

9% 8%

10%

10%

13%

14%

14%

19%

19%

26%

All

2

Q11

Ethics

2 Ethics

Ethics in peer review

Q11 With whom does responsibility lie for managing ethical issues?

Q11 With whom does responsibility lie for managing ethical issues?

With whom does responsibility lie for managing

ethical issues?

Entirely with the

journal’s Entirely with Editor the /

journal’s Editorial Editor board /

Editorial board

Mostly with the

journal’s Mostly with Editor the /

journal’s Editorial Editor board /

Editorial board

Equally with the

journal’s Equally Editor with the and

the journal’s Editor Publisher and

the journal’s Publisher

Mostly with the

Mostly journal’s with the

Publisher journal’s

Publisher

All

respondents All

respondents

Entirely with

Entirely the journal’s with

the Publisher journal’s

Publisher

Humanities and Social Science Researchers [n = 4008]

Humanities and Social Science Researchers [n = 4008]

44%

44%

38%

38%

16%

16%

1% 1%

1% 1%

Entirely with the

journal’s Entirely with Editor the /

journal’s Editorial Editor board /

Mostly with the

journal’s Mostly with Editor the /

journal’s Editorial Editor board /

Equally with the

journal’s Equally Editor with the and

the journal’s Editor Publisher and

Mostly with the

journal’s Mostly with Publisher the

journal’s Publisher

Entirely with the

journal’s Entirely Publisher with the

journal’s Publisher

Editorial board Editorial board the journal’s Publisher

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers [n = 2390]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers [n = 2390]

42%

37%

42%

37%

16%

16%

3%

2%

3%

2%

Entirely with the

journal’s Entirely with Editor the /

journal’s Editorial Editor board /

Mostly with the

journal’s Mostly with Editor the /

journal’s Editorial Editor board /

Equally with the

journal’s Equally Editor with the and

the journal’s Editor Publisher and

Mostly with the

journal’s Mostly with Publisher the

journal’s Publisher

Entirely with the

journal’s Entirely with Publisher the

journal’s Publisher

Editorial board Editorial board the journal’s Publisher

HSS STM

Single blind [n = 2,371]

10 - very capable

6% 5%

9 8

8% 8%

7

7%

6

12%

5 4

6% 9%

3 2

12%

26%

1 - totally incapable

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 18

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 18

10 - very capable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - totally incapable

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 17

14 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

ETHICS 15

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 17


Q12

Please select the option which best describes you:


Author – I have written scholarly papers published in academic journals, but not yet reviewed manuscripts

2

Author & Reviewer –I have also peer reviewed manuscripts

All

for a journal, but I am not an editor

Screening question Question

respondents

Author, Reviewer & Editor – I have also received submissions or made acceptance decisions for a journal

Please select the option which best describes you:

select the option which best Author describes – you: I have written scholarly Humanities papers and published Social Science in Researchers

academic journals, but not yet reviewed manuscripts

uthor – I have written scholarly papers published in academic journals, but not yet reviewed manuscripts

Author & Reviewer – I have also peer reviewed manuscripts

uthor & Reviewer –I have also peer reviewed manuscripts for a journal, but I am not an editor

for a journal, but I am not an editor

uthor, Reviewer & Editor – Author, I have also received Reviewer submissions & Editor made – I acceptance have also decisions received for a journal

submissions or made acceptance decisions for a journal

STM HSS

Q12

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

21% editor, reviewer and author

16% author

63% reviewer and author

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

18% editor, reviewer and author

18% author

Responses

from authors

63% reviewer and author

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 19

16 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

RESPONSES FROM AUTHORS 17


3 a

The process of peer review

3A

Process of Peer Review

Q13 As an author: thinking about your most recent article

3A Q13

Process of Peer Review

that underwent peer review – how long did you wait after you

submitted your manuscript for peer review before you received

Q13 the peer reviewers’ initial comments?

Authors

As an author: thinking about your most recent article that underwent peer review – how long did you wait after only

you submitted your manuscript for peer review before you received the peer reviewers’ initial comments?

As an author: thinking about your most recent article that underwent peer review – how long did you wait after

you submitted your Humanities manuscript for and peer Social review Science before you Researchers received the peer [n reviewers’ = 621] initial comments?

Humanities and Social Science Researchers 42% [n = 621]

Authors

only

3 a

The process of peer review

3A

Process of Peer Review

3A

Process of Peer Review

Q14 As an author: what do you consider a reasonable amount of

Q14

time to wait after submitting your manuscript for peer review

peer review before you receive feedback?

Q14 before you receive feedback?

only

Authors

only

As an author: what do you consider a reasonable amount of time to wait after submitting your manuscript for

peer review before you receive feedback?

Humanities and Social Science Researchers [n = 622]

50%

50%

Authors

As an author: what do you consider a reasonable amount of time to wait after submitting your manuscript for

Humanities and Social Science Researchers [n = 622]

30%

42%

33%

STM HSS

1%

30%

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 9% days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months 7 - 129%

months Longer than 12

4%

months 4%

1%

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months 7 - 12 months Longer than 12

months

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers [n = 433]

1%

4%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers [n = 433]

6%

9%

20%

20%

33%

33%

31%

31%

9%

7%

4%

2%

33%

9%

6%

1%

9%

1% 0%

6%

Up to 1% 7 days Up to 14 days Up to 30 days Up to 2 monthsUp to 6 months Up 1% to 12 Longer than 12

0%

months months

Up to 7 days Up to 14 days Up to 30 days Up to 2 monthsUp to 6 months Up to 12

months

3%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers [n = 433]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers [n = 433]

50%

13%

13%

50%

29%

29%

4%

Longer than 12

months

0% 0%

HSS STM

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months 7 - 12

6%

7% months Longer than 12

months

1%

2%

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months 7 - 12 months Longer than 12

months

4%

Up to 3% 7 days Up to 14 days Up to 30 days Up to 2 monthsUp to 6 months Up 0% to 12 Longer

0%

than 12

months months

Up to 7 days Up to 14 days Up to 30 days Up to 2 monthsUp to 6 months Up to 12

months

Longer than 12

months

18 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

PROCESS OF PEER REVIEW 19

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 20

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 21


STM HSS

3 a

The process of peer review

Q15 As an author: please rate how strongly you agree or disagree

3A with each of the following Process statements

of Peer Review

3A

Process of Peer Review

Authors

Authors

only

only

Q15 As an author: please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

Q15 As an author: please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

strongly disagree to 10 strongly agree

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

would like to see average peer review times, from

I would

submission

like to

to

see

decision

average

to

peer

publish,

review

displayed

times,

on

from

45%

16% 15% 8%

submission

journal's

to decision

website

to publish,

[n=622]

displayed on a

45%

16% 15% 8%

journal's website [n=622]

am usually kept well informed about the progress

I am

of

usually

my article

kept

through

well informed

the peer

about

review

the

process

progress

7% 8% 11% 12% 12% 14% 8% 12% 6% 10%

of my article through

[n=624]

the peer review process 7% 8% 11% 12% 12% 14% 8% 12% 6% 10%

[n=624]

10 strongly agree strongly disagree

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

would like to see average peer review times, from

I would

submission

like to

to

see

decision

average

to

peer

publish,

review

displayed

times,

on

from

34% 16% 17% 11% 9% 8%

submission

journal's

to decision

website

to publish,

[n=427]

displayed on a 34% 16% 17% 11% 9% 8%

journal's website [n=427]

am usually kept well informed about the progress

I am

of

usually

my article

kept

through

well informed

the peer

about

review

the

process

progress

15% 9% 14% 16% 10% 14% 8% 7%

of my article through 15% 9% 14% 16% 10% 14% 8% 7%

[n=429]

the peer review process

[n=429]

10 strongly agree strongly disagree

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

3 a

3A The process of peer review

3A

Process

Process

of

of

Peer

Peer

Review

Review

The following questions are about the data authors gather and use during their

research (e.g. experimental results, data tables, transcripts, videos etc.).

Q16

Q16

The following questions are about the data authors gather and use during their research (e.g. experimental

The following questions are about the data authors gather and use during their research (e.g. experimental

results, data tables, transcripts, videos etc.).

results, data tables, transcripts, videos etc.).

Q16

Please

Please

rate how

rate

strongly

how

you agree

strongly

or disagree

you

with

agree

each of the

or

following

disagree

statements:

with each of

Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

the following statements

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

strongly disagree to 10 strongly agree

Authors

Authors

only

only

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Peer review of authors' data is desirable in principle

Peer review of authors' data is desirable in principle 19% 11% 17% 13% 11% 13% 6%

[n = 623]

19% 11% 17% 13% 11% 13% 6%

[n 623]

It is unrealistic to expect peer reviewers to review

It is unrealistic to expect peer reviewers to review 12% 8% 15% 14% 9% 16% 5% 9% 6% 6%

authors' data [n = 622]

12% 8% 15% 14% 9% 16% 5% 9% 6% 6%

authors' data [n 622]

It is unrealistic to expect authors to make available

It is unrealistic to expect authors to make available 9% 6% 12% 13% 10% 14% 6% 10% 9% 12%

their data for peer review [n = 623] 9% 6% 12% 13% 10% 14% 6% 10% 9% 12%

their data for peer review [n 623]

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

10 strongly agree strongly disagree

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Peer review of authors' data is desirable in principle

Peer review of authors' data is desirable in principle 17% 11% 17% 15% 11% 18%

[n = 427]

17% 11% 17% 15% 11% 18%

[n 427]

It is unrealistic to expect peer reviewers to review

It is unrealistic to expect peer reviewers to review 8% 8% 14% 11% 13% 20% 6% 8% 6% 6%

authors' data [n = 422]

8% 8% 14% 11% 13% 20% 6% 8% 6% 6%

authors' data [n 422]

It is unrealistic to expect authors to make available

It is unrealistic to expect authors to make available 6% 7% 10% 12% 14% 20% 7% 9% 7% 7%

their data for peer review [n = 422] 6% 7% 10% 12% 14% 20% 7% 9% 7% 7%

their data for peer review [n 422]

HSS STM

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree 1 - Strongly Disagree

strongly disagree Strongly Disagree

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 23

2015 Taylor Francis Peer Review Survey Top Level Results INTERNAL REPORT Will Frass 23

20 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

PROCESS OF PEER REVIEW 21


4 a

4A

Alternatives

4A

Alternatives

Q17 As an author: which of the following types of peer review

have your papers undergone? Please tick all that apply

Q17

Q17

Different models of peer review

As an author: which of the following types of peer review have your papers undergone? Please tick all that

As

apply:

an author: which of the following types of peer review have your papers undergone? Please tick all that

apply:

74%

74%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Authors

Authors only

only

4 a

Different models Alternatives of peer review

4A

4A

Q18

Alternatives

As an author: suppose you could choose the method of peer review for your paper. Please rate how

Q18 comfortable As an you author: are with each suppose of the following you methods: could choose the method of peer

Q18 review

As an author:

for

suppose

your

you

paper.

could choose

Please

the method

rate

of peer

how

review

comfortable your paper. Please

you

rate

are

how

with

comfortable you are with each of 1 the – very following uncomfortable methods: to 10 – very comfortable

each of the following methods

1 – very uncomfortable to 10 – very comfortable

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

52%

11%

14%

16%

13%

6%

7%

8% 6%

5%

12%

Authors

only

Authors

only

Double blind [n = 611] 0% 20% 52% 40% 14% 60% 13% 80% 7% 5% 100%

Double blind [n = 611]

Open [n = 605]

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

13%

7%

11%

10%

STM HSS

Double blind

Double

[n = 444]

blind

[n = 444]

56%

56%

Single blind

Single

[n = 227]

blind

[n = 227]

36%

36%

Single blind

Single

[n= 218]

blind

[n= 218]

18%

18%

Open

[n

Open

= 110]

[n = 110]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

49%

49%

Double blind

Double

[n = 199]

blind

[n = 199]

17%

17%

Open

[n

Open

= 70]

[n = 70]

3% 2%

3%

Post-publication

2%

Open and published

Post-publication

[n = 15]

Open

[n

and

=

published

14]

[n = 15]

[n = 14]

6%

6%

Open and published

Open

[n

and

=

published

26]

[n = 26]

3%

3%

Post-publication

Post-publication

[n = 11]

[n = 11]

Open Open and Published [n = 605]

[n = 606]

Open and Published

Post-publication [n = 606] [n

= 604]

Post-publication [n

Single blind = 604] [n = 607]

13%

11%

11% 6% 10%

8% 6% 8% 8%

8%

8%

7%

6%

6% 8%

7% 6%

11%

10%

8%

5%

11% 10%

9% 10% 13%

9% 10%

12%

12%

14%

13%

12%

12%

8%

7%

13%

16%

8%

10%

14%

6% 8% 6%

11% 8%

Single blind [n = 607] 8% 7% 6% 5% 14% 8% 13% 14%

25%

10 - very comfortable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very uncomfortable

10%

12%

14%

14%

18%

18%

25%

10 - very comfortable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very uncomfortable

Double blind [n = 422] 0% 36% 20% 40% 16% 60% 15% 12% 80% 6% 7% 100%

Double blind [n = 422]

Open [n = 410]

Post-publication Open [n = 410] [n

= 413]

Post-publication [n

Open = and 413] Published

[n = 414]

Open and Published

Single [n blind = 414] [n = 413]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

10%

10%

11%

11%

9%

9%

9%

36%

8%

8%

5%

5%

7%

7%

7%

15%

15%

14%

14%

14%

14%

11%

16%

14%

14%

12%

12%

12%

12%

11%

12%

12%

Single blind [n = 413] 9% 7% 11% 11% 9% 17% 9% 8% 7% 12%

10 - very comfortable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very uncomfortable

12%

10%

10%

9%

12%

8% 11% 8%

7% 10% 10%

15%

15%

17%

17%

16%

16%

17%

15%

12%

7%

6%

6%

7% 6%

4% 8% 6%

4%

7%

7%

9%

8%

7%

7%

8%

6%

7%

7%

7%

7%

9%

9%

11%

11%

11%

11%

12%

HSS STM

Please note the 10 responses - very comfortable from authors on motivations 9 8 to review 7 and 6training 5 (Q19-25) 4 are 3included 2 in a later 1 - very supplement. uncomfortable

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 25

22 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

DIFFERENT MODELS 23

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 24

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 25


3 r As an author: thinking about your most recent article

The process of peer review

3R

Process of Peer Review

Reviewers

only

Q26

Q26

As an author: thinking about your most recent article that underwent peer review – how long did you

Reviewers

wait after

you submitted your manuscript for peer review before you received the peer reviewers’ initial comments?

only

3R

Process of Peer Review

that underwent peer review – how long did you wait after you

submitted your manuscript for peer review before you received

the peer reviewers’ Humanities initial and Social comments? Science Researchers [n = 2544]

Q26

As an author: thinking about your most recent article that underwent peer review – how long did you wait after

you submitted your manuscript for peer review before you received the peer reviewers’ initial comments?

49%

Responses

from reviewers

0% 1%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers [n = 2544]

6%

30%

30%

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months 7 - 12 months Longer than 12

11%

months

6%

3%

0% 1%

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months 7 - 12 months Longer than 12

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers [n = 1538] months

39%

4%

6%

1%

1%

16%

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months 7 - 12 months Longer than 12

months

4%

6%

1%

1%

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months 7 - 12 months Longer than 12

months

49%

Scientific, Technical and Medical 39% Researchers [n = 1538]

33%

16%

33%

11%

3%

HSS STM

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 37

24 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

PROCESS OF PEER REVIEW 25


3 r 3R

Process of Peer Review

Q273R

As an author: please Process rate of Peer how Review strongly you agree or

disagree with each of the following statements

Q27

Q27

The process of peer review

As an author: please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

As an author: please rate how strongly 1 – strongly you agree disagree or disagree to 10 – with strongly each agree of the following statements:

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Reviewers

only

Reviewers

only

3 r

The process of peer review

3R

Process of Peer Review

3R

Process of Peer Review

Q28 As a reviewer: thinking about the most recent article that

Q28

you peer reviewed – how long was the duration between your

between your acceptance of the invitation to review, and the delivery of your initial report?

Q28

acceptance between your acceptance of the of the invitation to to review, review, and the and delivery the of your delivery initial report? of your

initial report?

As a reviewer: thinking about the most recent article that you peer reviewed – how long was the duration

As a reviewer: thinking about the most recent article that you peer reviewed – how long was the duration

Humanities and Social Science Researchers [n = 2540]

Humanities and Social Science Researchers [n = 2540]

Reviewers

Reviewers

only

only

Humanities and Social 0% Science 20% Researchers 40% 60% 80% 100%

40%

HSS

STM

I would like to see average peer review times, from

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

submission to decision to publish, displayed on a

47% 13% 15% 9%

I would like journal's to see average website peer [n = review 2530] times, from

submission to decision to publish, displayed on a

47% 13% 15% 9%

journal's website [n = 2530]

I am usually kept well informed about the progress

of my article through the peer review process 9% 11% 9% 16% 9% 14% 12% 11%

I am usually kept well [n informed = 2522] about the progress

of my article through the peer review process 9% 11% 9% 16% 9% 14% 12% 11%

[n = 2522]

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Scientific, Technical and 0% Medical 20% Researchers 40% 60% 80% 100%

I would like to see average peer review times, from

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

submission to decision to publish, displayed on a

41%

15% 17% 9% 7%

I would like journal's to see average website peer [n = review 1520] times, from

submission to decision to publish, displayed on a

41%

15% 17% 9% 7%

journal's website [n = 1520]

I am usually kept well informed about the progress

of my article through the peer review process 9% 8% 12% 13% 10% 16% 9% 10% 7%

I am usually kept well [n informed = 1521] about the progress

of my article through the peer review process 9% 8% 12% 13% 10% 16% 9% 10% 7%

[n = 1521]

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

16%

40%

30%

16%

7%

5%

7%

5%

1% 0%

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months

1% 0%

7 - 12 months Longer than 12

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months

months

7 - 12 months Longer than 12

months

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers [n = 1534]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers [n = 1534]

26%

26%

43%

43%

30%

17%

17%

8%

8%

5%

5%

0% 0%

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months

0% 0%

7 - 12 months Longer than 12

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months

months

7 - 12 months Longer than 12

months

HSS STM

26 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

PROCESS OF PEER REVIEW 27

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 38

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 39


3 r 2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 40

HSS

STM

The process of Process peer of Peer review Review

3R

Reviewers

only

As a reviewer: what do you consider a reasonable amount of time to be given, after accepting the invitation to

3R

Process of Peer Review

Q29

Q29 review, As to a deliver reviewer: your initial report? what do you consider a reasonable amount

Q29

of time to be given, after accepting the invitation to review, to

deliver review, to deliver your your initial report?

As a reviewer: what do you consider a reasonable amount of time to be given, after accepting the invitation to

1%

55%

33%

9%

Within 7 days Within 14 days Within 30 days Within 2

1%

months

Within 7 days Within 14 days Within 30 days Within 2

months

2%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers [n = 2549]

Humanities and 55% Social Science Researchers [n = 2549]

9%

25%

54%

33%

Within 6

months 2%

Within 6

months

Within 12 Longer than 12

months

0%

months

0%

Within 12

months

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers [n = 1536]

Scientific, Technical 54% and Medical Researchers [n = 1536]

25%

16%

16%

Within 7 days Within 14 days Within 30 days Within 2

2%

months

2%

0% 0%

Longer than 12

months

2% 0% 0%

Reviewers

only

Within 6 Within 12 Longer than 12

months 2% months 0% months

0%

The process of peer review

Reviewers

3R

Process of Peer Review

Reviewers only

Some 3R journals provide reviewers Process with a of structured Peer Review format for the review, imposing

only

a list of areas for consideration in the review, such as the manuscript’s relevance,

methodology, length and ethics.

Q30

Q30

Some journals provide reviewers with a structured format for the review, imposing a list of areas for

Some consideration journals in provide the review, reviewers such with as the a structured manuscript’s format relevance, for the methodology, review, imposing length a list and of ethics. areas for

consideration in the review, such as the manuscript’s relevance, methodology, length and ethics.

Q30 How beneficial do you think each of the following review

formats are for ensuring the quality of the review?

How beneficial do you think each of the following review formats are for ensuring the quality of the review?

How beneficial do you think each of the following review formats are for ensuring the quality of the review?

1 – very detrimental to 10 – very beneficial

1 – very detrimental to 10 – very beneficial

Basic checklist of areas to be covered [n = 2528]

Basic checklist of areas to be covered [n = 2528]

Structured form to be completed that covers each

Structured form to area be [n completed = 2531] that covers each

area [n = 2531]

Numerical rating scale for each area [n = 2529]

Numerical rating scale for each area [n = 2529]

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Humanities and Social 0% Science 20% Researchers 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Totally unstructured review [n = 2531]

Totally unstructured review [n = 2531]

14%

11%

6% 7%

8%

10 – very beneficial 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 – very detrimental

10 – very beneficial 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 – very detrimental

Basic checklist of areas to be covered [n = 1529]

Basic checklist of areas to be covered [n = 1529]

Structured form to be completed that covers each

Structured form to area be [n completed = 1523] that covers each

area [n = 1523]

Numerical rating scale for each area [n = 1524]

Numerical rating scale for each area [n = 1524]

14%

11%

6% 7%

15%

13%

10%

8%

11%

12%

13%

8%

11%

11%

12%

13%

8%

13%

13%

8%

8%

20%

20%

12%

12%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Scientific, Technical 0% and Medical 20% Researchers 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

15%

13%

10%

11%

13%

13%

18%

18%

22%

22%

19%

19%

20%

20%

22%

22%

11%

11%

14%

14%

17%

17%

20%

16%

11%

20%

16%

11%

19%

19%

17%

17%

11%

11%

12%

12%

9%

9%

17%

17%

14%

13%

12%

13%

14%

13%

12%

13%

12%

12%

9%

9%

11%

11%

11%

11%

10%

10%

6%

6%

9%

9%

12%

12%

7%

7%

9%

12%

7%

9%

12%

7%

HSS STM

Within 7 days Within 14 days Within 30 days Within 2

months

Within 6

months

Within 12

months

Longer than 12

months

3 r 2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 41

Totally unstructured review [n = 1519]

Totally unstructured review [n = 1519]

6%

6%

8%

8%

8%

8%

8%

8%

18% 11%

18% 11%

16%

16%

12% 11%

12% 11%

10 – very beneficial 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 – very detrimental

10 – very beneficial 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 – very detrimental

28

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 40

PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

PROCESS OF PEER REVIEW 29

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 41


Reviewers

Process of Peer Review

Reviewers only

The following questions are Process about the of data Peer authors Review gather and use during their research only

(e.g. experimental results, data tables, transcripts, videos etc.).

3R

3R

Q31

Q31

The process of peer review

The following questions are about the data authors gather and use during their research (e.g. experimental

The results, following data tables, questions transcripts, are about videos the data etc.). authors gather and use during their research (e.g. experimental

results, data tables, transcripts, videos etc.).

Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Q31 Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of

the following statements

4 r

Different models of peer review

Q32 4R As an author: which of Alternatives

the following types of peer review have

your papers undergone? Please tick all that apply

Q32

As an author: which of the following types of peer review have your papers undergone? Please tick all that

apply:

Reviewers

only

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

93%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

It is unrealistic to expect peer reviewers to review

It is unrealistic authors' to expect data peer [n = reviewers 2516] to review

authors' data [n = 2516]

19%

19%

14%

14%

16%

16%

12%

12%

8%

8%

13%

13%

6%

6%

HSS

STM

Peer review of authors' data is desirable in principle

Peer review of authors' [n = data 2521] is desirable in principle

[n = 2521]

It is unrealistic to expect authors to make available

It is unrealistic their data to for expect peer authors review [n to = make 2518] available

their data for peer review [n = 2518]

15%

15%

14%

14%

8%

8%

10%

10%

15%

15%

14%

14%

14%

14%

11%

11%

8%

8%

11%

11%

16%

16%

7%

7%

13% 6% 9% 7% 8%

13% 6% 9% 7% 8%

10 – strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 – strongly disagree

10 – strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 – strongly disagree

It is unrealistic to expect peer reviewers to review

It is unrealistic authors' to expect data peer [n = reviewers 1525] to review

authors' data [n = 1525]

Peer review of authors' data is desirable in principle

Peer review of authors' [n = data 1529] is desirable in principle

[n = 1529]

It is unrealistic to expect authors to make available

It is unrealistic their data to for expect peer authors review [n to = make 1532] available

their data for peer review [n = 1532]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Scientific, Technical 0% and Medical 20% Researchers 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

13%

13%

15%

15%

9%

9%

10%

10%

13%

13%

9%

9%

13%

13%

16%

16%

17%

17%

12%

12%

12%

12%

15%

15%

8%

8%

7%

7%

11%

11%

13%

13%

14%

14%

8%

8%

6% 7% 6% 6%

6% 7% 6% 6%

16%

16%

9%

9%

9%

9%

9%

9%

Double blind

[n = 2,317]

77%

45%

Single blind

[n = 1,117]

57%

14%

Open

[n = 361]

3% 2%

Open and published

[n = 78]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Post-publication

[n = 46]

HSS STM

10 – strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 – strongly disagree

10 – strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 – strongly disagree

18%

6%

4%

Single blind

[n = 1,159]

Double blind

[n = 864]

Open

[n = 276]

3 r DIFFERENT MODELS 31

Open and published

[n = 85]

Post-publication

[n = 56]

30

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 42

2015 PEER REVIEW Taylor IN & 2015 Francis A GLOBAL Peer Review VIEW (A TAYLOR Survey & FRANCIS – WHITE Top Level PAPER) Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 42


4 r DIFFERENT MODELS 33

HSS

STM

4R

4R

Q33

Different models

Alternatives

of peer review

Reviewers

Alternatives

only

As an author: suppose you could choose the method of peer review for your paper. Please rate how

comfortable you are with each of the following methods:

Q33 As an author: suppose you could choose the method of

Q33 As peer an author: review suppose for you your could 1 choose – paper. very uncomfortable the method Please of peer to 10 rate review – very how comfortable

your comfortable paper. Please rate you how

comfortable you are with each of the methods:

are with each of the following methods

Double Open blind [n = 2,505] 2,472]

Open Open and [n Published = 2,472]

[n = 2,479]

Open Post-publication

and Published

[n [n = 2,479] 2,465]

Post-publication

Single blind [n = [n 2,465] = 2,479]

1 – very uncomfortable to 10 – very comfortable

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

8% 9%

7% 8%

6% 7%

5% 6%

5% 7% 8%

8% 10% 9% 9% 7% 9% 12% 13% 8%

7% 9% 7% 7%

13% 12%

7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 9% 13% 8%

8% 8%

8% 11%

8% 17%

Single 10 - blind very [n comfortable = 2,479] 6% 9 7% 8 7% 7 7% 6 9% 5 8% 4 11% 3 213%

1 - very uncomfortable

30%

8% 9%

9% 9%

9% 13% 12%

12% 9%

9% 11% 9%

12% 11%

7% 18%

22% 18%

24% 22%

30% 24%

10 - very comfortable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very uncomfortable

Double Single blind [n [n = 1,516] 1,490]

Single Open blind [n [n = 1,483] 1,490]

Open Open and [n Published = 1,483]

[n = 1,480]

Open Post-publication

and Published

[n [n = 1,480] 1,477]

9%

13% 15%

11% 13%

8% 11%

6%

9% 43%

9% 9%

9% 9%

8% 9%

10% 54% 9%

11% 11%

9% 11%

9% 9%

12% 12%

10% 12% 8%

9% 10% 9% 8%

Post-publication

10 - very 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% 14% 8% 10% 9% 15%

[n =

comfortable

1,477]

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very uncomfortable

9%

13%

19% 8%

9% 8%

9% 14%

14% 14%

12% 14% 6%

13% 12%

13% 7%

8% 7%

9%

6% 6%

6% 9%

10% 9%

8% 10% 6%

8% 8%

7% 6%

8% 9% 7%

9%

5% 12%

12%

15% 12%

15%

Reviewers

only

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Double blind [n = 2,505] 0% 20% 54% 40% 60% 17% 12% 80% 7% 100%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Double blind [n = 1,516] 0% 20% 43% 40% 19% 60% 14% 80% 10% 5% 100%

15%

11%

12%

4 r

Different models of peer review

4R

Alternatives

Q35 4R The following questions Alternatives are about Open Peer Review, where

Q35 both the author’s and reviewers’ names are known to each other.

Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the

Q35

following statements 1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Reviewers

only

Reviewers

only

The following questions are about Open Peer Review, where both the author’s and reviewers’ names are

known to each other. Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

The following questions are about Open Peer Review, where both the author’s and reviewers’ names are

known to each other. Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Humanities 0% and Social 20% Science 40% Researchers 60% 80% 100%

I would find it difficult to critique the 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

content of a paper, or raise any ethical

I would find it difficult to critique the

13% 7% 11% 12% 9% 10% 7% 10% 10% 11%

concerns, if the author knew my name

content of a paper, [n = 2,490] or raise any ethical

13% 7% 11% 12% 9% 10% 7% 10% 10% 11%

concerns, if the author knew my name

I would be hesitant to criticise a paper

[n = 2,490]

because of the potential impact on my

I would be hesitant to criticise a paper

12% 8% 10% 12% 9% 13% 6% 8% 9% 13%

future career

because of the [n potential = 2,485] impact on my

12% 8% 10% 12% 9% 13% 6% 8% 9% 13%

future career

I would be comfortable [n = 2,485] with the author

knowing I was the person who reviewed 10% 6% 12% 11% 8% 13% 7% 11% 8% 15%

I would be their comfortable paper [n = with 2,487] the author

knowing I was the person who reviewed 10% 6% 12% 11% 8% 13% 7% 11% 8% 15%

their paper [n = 2,487]

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Scientific, Technical 0% and 20% Medical 40% Researchers 60% 80% 100%

I would find it difficult to critique the 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

content of a paper, or raise any ethical

I would find it difficult to critique the

11% 9% 12% 11% 9% 11% 7% 10% 10% 11%

concerns, if the author knew my name

content of a paper, [n = 1,504] or raise any ethical

11% 9% 12% 11% 9% 11% 7% 10% 10% 11%

concerns, if the author knew my name

I would be comfortable [n = 1,504] with the author

knowing I was the person who reviewed 10% 7% 10% 10% 9% 15% 6% 8% 10% 13%

I would be their comfortable paper [n = with 1,506] the author

knowing I was the person who reviewed 10% 7% 10% 10% 9% 15% 6% 8% 10% 13%

their paper [n = 1,506]

I would be hesitant to criticise a paper

because of the potential impact on my 10% 6% 10% 10% 9% 15% 6% 10% 11% 14%

I would future be hesitant career to [n criticise = 1,496] a paper

because of the potential impact on my 10% 6% 10% 10% 9% 15% 6% 10% 11% 14%

future career [n = 1,496]

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

HSS STM

10 - very comfortable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very uncomfortable

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 44

Please note the responses from reviewers on motivations to review and training (Q36-43) are included in a later supplement.

32

PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 44

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 45


3 e The process of peer review

3E

Process of Peer Review

Editors

only

Q44

Q44 As an author: thinking about your most recent article

3E

Process of Peer Review

that underwent peer review – how long did you wait after you

submitted your manuscript for peer review before you received

the peer reviewers’ Humanities initial and Social comments? Science Researchers [n = 869]

Q44

As an author: thinking about your most recent article that underwent peer review – how long did you wait

Editors

after

you submitted your manuscript for peer review before you received the peer reviewers’ initial comments?

only

As an author: thinking about your most recent article that underwent peer review – how long did you wait after

you submitted your manuscript for peer review before you received the peer reviewers’ initial comments?

49%

Responses

from editors

Humanities and Social Science Researchers [n = 869]

28%

49%

12%

6%

28%

1% 2%

3%

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months 7 - 1212%

months Longer than 12

months

6%

1% 2%

3%

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months 7 - 12 months Longer than 12

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers [n = 453] months

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers 38% [n = 453]

35%

16%

38%

35%

HSS STM

6%

0%

3%

2%

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days

16%

15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months 7 - 12 months Longer than 12

months

6%

0%

3%

2%

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months 7 - 12 months Longer than 12

months

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 61

34 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

PROCESS OF PEER REVIEW 35


3 e The process of peer review

3 e The process of peer review

3E

Q45

3E Q45

Process of Peer Review

As an author: please rate how strongly you agree or

disagree with each of the following statements

Process of Peer Review

As an author: please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Editors

only

Editors

only

Q46

3E

Process of Peer Review

3E As an editor: thinking Process about of your Peer own Review journal – on average,

how long does it take, after an author submits an article for peer

Q46

review, article for before peer review, they before receive they receive the the peer reviewers’ initial comments? initial comments?

Q46

As an editor: thinking about your own journal – on average, how long does it take, after an author submits an

As an editor: thinking about your own journal – on average, how long does it take, after an author submits an

article for peer review, before they receive the peer reviewers’ initial comments?

Editors

only

Editors

only

HSS

STM

Q45

As an author: please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

Humanities 1 – strongly and Social disagree Science to 10 – strongly Researchers agree

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I would like to see average peer review times, from

submission to decision to Humanities publish, displayed and on Social a Science 40% Researchers 13% 16% 10% 7%

journal's website [n = 862]

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I am usually kept well informed about the progress

I would

of my

like

article

to see

through

average

the

peer

peer

review

review

times,

process

from

submission to decision

[n =

to

855]

publish, displayed on a

journal's website [n = 862]

7% 10% 9%

40%

17% 11% 15% 10% 14%

13% 16% 10% 7%

I am usually 10 - strongly kept well agree informed 9 about 8 the progress 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

of my article through the peer review process 7% 10% 9% 17% 11% 15% 10% 14%

[n = 855]

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I would like to see average peer review times, from

submission to decision to Scientific, publish, displayed Technical on a and Medical 37% Researchers 12% 19% 10% 11%

journal's website [n = 445]

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I am usually kept well informed about the progress

I would

of my

like

article

to see

through

average

the

peer

peer

review

review

times,

process

from

submission to decision

[n =

to

443]

publish, displayed on a

journal's website [n = 445]

7% 10% 9%

37%

17% 11%

12%

15%

19%

10% 14% 14%

10% 11%

I am usually 10 - strongly kept well agree informed 9 about 8 the progress 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

of my article through the peer review process 7% 10% 9% 17% 11% 15% 10% 14% 14%

[n = 443]

0% 1%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers [n = 835]

Humanities and Social Science Researchers 49% [n = 835]

11%

11%

Up to 0% 7 days

1%

8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months

2%

Longer than 6

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months

months

Longer than 6

months

49%

44%

35%

35%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers [n = 442]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers [n = 442]

44%

2%

HSS STM

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

25%

25%

23%

23%

5%

1%

2%

5%

1%

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months

2%

Longer than 6

Up to 7 days 8 - 14 days 15 - 30 days 1 - 2 months 3 - 6 months

months

Longer than 6

months

36

PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

PROCESS OF PEER REVIEW 37

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 63


3 e The process of peer review

3E

Process of Peer Review

Q47 3E As an editor: what Process do you of Peer consider Review a realistic amount of

time to expect reviewers to deliver their initial report, after

Q47

they after they have accepted the invitation the invitation to review? to review?

Q47

Editors

only

Editors

only

As an editor: what do you consider a realistic amount of time to expect reviewers to deliver their initial report,

As an editor: what do you consider a realistic amount of time to expect reviewers to deliver their initial report,

after they have accepted the invitation to review?

Humanities and Social Science Researchers [n = 845]

Humanities and Social Science Researchers [n = 845]

48%

48%

41%

41%

3 e The process of peer review

Q48

Editors

3E

Process of Peer Review

only

Some 3E journals provide reviewers Editors

Process with a of structured Peer Review format for the review, imposing

only

a list of areas for consideration in the review, such as the manuscript’s relevance,

methodology, Q48 Some journals length provide and reviewers ethics. with a structured format for the review, imposing a list of areas for

consideration in the review, such as the manuscript’s relevance, methodology, length and ethics.

Q48 Some journals provide reviewers with a structured format for the review, imposing a list of areas for

How consideration beneficial in do the you review, think such each as of the manuscript’s following review relevance, formats methodology, are for ensuring length the and quality ethics. of the review?

How beneficial do you think each of the following review

formats are for ensuring the quality of the review?

How beneficial do you think each of 1 the – very following detrimental review to formats 10 – very are beneficial for ensuring the quality of the review?

1 – very detrimental to 10 – very beneficial

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Humanities and Social 0% Science 20% Researchers 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Basic checklist of areas to be covered [n = 850] 15% 10% 22% 18% 12% 14%

Basic checklist of areas to be covered [n = 850]

15%

10%

22%

18%

12%

14%

HSS

Structured form to be completed that covers each

area [n = 848]

Structured form to be completed that covers each

area [n = 848]

11%

11%

11%

11%

19%

19%

16%

16%

14%

14%

13%

13%

6%

6%

HSS

0%

6%

6%

Within 0% 7 days Within 14 days Within 30 days Within 2

months

Within 7 days Within 14 days Within 30 days Within 2

months

4%

4%

Within 6

months

Within 6

months

0% 0%

Within 0% 12 Longer 0% than 12

months

Within 12

months

Longer than 12

months months

Numerical rating scale for each area [n = 848]

Numerical rating scale for each area [n = 848]

Totally unstructured review [n = 849]

Totally unstructured review [n = 849]

7%

7%

10 - very beneficial 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very detrimental

7%

7%

8%

8%

9%

9%

9%

9%

11%

11%

8%

8%

12%

12%

18%

18%

18%

18%

9%

9%

7%

7%

16%

16%

11%

11%

11%

11%

9%

9%

9%

9%

12%

12%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers [n = 439]

10 - very beneficial 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very detrimental

STM

Scientific, Technical 49% and Medical Researchers [n = 439]

20%

20%

49%

24%

24%

Scientific, Technical and 0% Medical 20% Researchers 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Basic checklist of areas to be covered [n = 440] 13% 15% 17% 18% 13% 14%

Structured form to be completed that covers each

area [n = 440]

Structured form to be completed that covers each

area [n = 440]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Basic checklist of areas to be covered [n = 440]

13%

13%

13%

15%

12%

12%

17%

18%

18%

14%

14%

18%

13%

13%

13%

14%

14%

14%

6%

6%

STM

1%

Within 1% 7 days Within 14 days Within 30 days Within 2

months

Within 7 days Within 14 days Within 30 days Within 2

months

5%

5%

Within 6

months

Within 6

months

1% 1%

Within 1% 12 Longer 1% than 12

months

Within 12

months

Longer than 12

months months

Numerical rating scale for each area [n = 442]

Numerical rating scale for each area [n = 442]

Totally unstructured review [n = 439]

Totally unstructured review [n = 439]

8%

8%

7%

7%

9%

10%

14%

8%

14%

9%

12%

19%

8%

17%

13%

6% 7% 6% 7%

10 - very beneficial 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very detrimental

9%

10%

14%

8%

14%

9%

12%

19%

8%

17%

13%

6% 7% 6% 7%

10%

10%

11%

11%

10 - very beneficial 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very detrimental

38

PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 64

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 65

PROCESS OF PEER REVIEW 39

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 65


HSS

3 e The process of peer review

Q49

Editors

Process of Peer Review

Editors only

The following questions are Process about the of data Peer authors Review gather and use during their research

(e.g. experimental results, data tables, transcripts, videos

only

etc.).

3E

3E

Q49

Q49

The following questions are about the data authors gather and use during their research (e.g. experimental

results,

The following

data tables,

questions

transcripts,

are about

videos

the data

etc.).

authors gather and use during their research (e.g. experimental

results, data tables, transcripts, videos etc.).

Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of

Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

the following statements 1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Humanities and Social 0% Science 20% Researchers 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

It is unrealistic to expect peer reviewers to review

18% 14% 14% 12% 9% 11% 6% 6% 7%

It is unrealistic

authors'

to expect

data

peer

[n =

reviewers

835]

to review

18% 14% 14% 12% 9% 11% 6% 6% 7%

authors' data [n = 835]

Peer review of authors' data is desirable in principle

Peer review of authors'

[n =

data

847]

is desirable in principle

[n = 847]

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

18%

8%

16%

13%

11%

15%

6% 6%

It is unrealistic to expect authors to make available

13% 10% 13% 10% 9% 13% 5% 9% 8% 11%

It is unrealistic

their data

to

for

expect

peer

authors

review

to

[n

make

= 845]

available

13% 10% 13% 10% 9% 13% 5% 9% 8% 11%

their data for peer review [n = 845]

We have introduced, or have a plan in place to

introduce, peer review of author's data at our

15% 6% 9% 16%

41%

We have introduced, or have a plan in place to

introduce, peer

journal

review

[n

of

=

author's

799]

data at our

15% 6% 9% 16%

41%

journal [n = 799]

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

18%

8%

16%

13%

11%

15%

6% 6%

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

4 e Different models of peer review

4E

Alternatives

Q50 4E As an author: which of Alternatives the following types of peer review

have your papers undergone? Please tick all that apply

Q50

Q50

As an author: which of the following types of peer review have your papers undergone? Please tick all that

apply: As an author: which of the following types of peer review have your papers undergone? Please tick all that

apply:

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

95%

95%

55%

55%

24%

24%

6%

4%

6%

4%

Double blind

Double [n = 790] blind

Single blind

Single [n = 460] blind

Open

[n Open = 199]

Open and published

Open [n and = published 51]

Post-publication

Post-publication [n = 35]

[n = 790]

[n = 460]

[n = 199]

[n = 51]

[n = 35]

Editors

Editors only

only

HSS

STM

Scientific, Technical and 0% Medical 20% Researchers 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Peer review of authors' data is desirable in principle

21% 10% 15% 14% 9% 16% 6%

Peer review of authors'

[n =

data

439]

is desirable in principle

21% 10% 15% 14% 9% 16% 6%

[n = 439]

It is unrealistic to expect peer reviewers to review

It is unrealistic

authors'

to expect

data

peer

[n =

reviewers

439]

to review

authors' data [n = 439]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

15%

11%

16%

10%

8%

14%

5% 6%

It is unrealistic to expect authors to make available

10% 8% 11% 15% 8% 13% 6% 9% 10% 12%

It is unrealistic

their data

to

for

expect

peer

authors

review

to

[n

make

= 440]

available

10% 8% 11% 15% 8% 13% 6% 9% 10% 12%

their data for peer review [n = 440]

We have introduced, or have a plan in place to

introduce, peer review of author's data at our

20% 9% 13% 25%

We have introduced, or have a plan in place to

introduce, peer

journal

review

[n

of

=

author's

427]

data at our

20% 9% 13% 25%

journal [n = 427]

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

15%

11%

16%

10%

8%

14%

5% 6%

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree

83%

83%

Single blind

Single [n = 348] blind

[n = 348]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

61%

61%

27%

27%

12%

12%

Double blind

Open Open and published

Double [n = 254] blind [n Open = 113] Open [n and = published 49]

[n = 254]

[n = 113]

[n = 49]

7%

7%

Post-publication

Post-publication [n = 31]

[n = 31]

STM

40

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 66

PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 66

DIFFERENT MODELS 41


4 e 4E Different models Alternatives of peer review

4E

Alternatives

Q51 As an author: suppose you could choose the method of peer review for your paper. Please rate how

Q51 comfortable As an you author: are with each suppose of the following you methods: could choose the method of

Q51 peer As an author: review suppose for you your could choose paper. the method Please of peer rate review how for your comfortable paper. Please rate you how

1 – very uncomfortable to 10 – very comfortable

comfortable you are with each of the following methods:

are with each of the following methods

1 – very uncomfortable to 10 – very comfortable

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Editors

only

Editors

only

4 e Different models of peer review

4E

4E

Q52

Q52

Q52

Editors

Editors only

only

Alternatives

Alternatives

As an editor: which of the following types of peer review have

you used on journals that you edit? Please tick all that apply

As an editor: which of the following types of peer review have you used on journals that you edit?

As an editor: which of the following types of peer review have you used on journals that you edit?

Please tick all that apply:

Please tick all that apply:

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Double blind [n = 836]

0% 20% 56% 40% 60% 14% 13% 80% 6% 100%

86%

86%

Double blind [n = 836]

Open [n = 826]

13%

7%

56%

10%

8%

8%

13%

14%

6%

8%

13%

7%

6%

20%

HSS

Post-publication

Open [n = 826]

[n = 824]

Post-publication

Open and Published

[n = 824]

[n = 830]

13%

10%

10%

10%

7% 10%

4% 10% 7%

4%

5%

10% 7%

9% 7%

8%

8%

8%

8%

8%

11%

11%

11%

13%

6%

6%

7%

6%

9%

9%

10%

8%

10%

10%

9%

7%

20%

25%

25%

24%

35%

35%

HSS

Open and Published

Single [n blind = 830] [n = 832]

10% 5% 9% 7% 8% 11% 7% 10%

10% 5% 7% 7% 6% 10% 6% 11%

9%

11%

24%

26%

Single blind [n = 832] 10%

10 - very comfortable

5%

9

7%

8

7%

7

6%

6

10%

5

6%

4

11%

3 2

11%

26%

1 - very uncomfortable

10 - very comfortable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very uncomfortable

Double blind

Double [n = 704] blind

[n = 704]

Single blind

Single [n = 284] blind

[n = 284]

11%

11%

Open

[n Open = 94]

[n = 94]

3% 2%

3% 2%

Open and published Post-publication

Open [n and = published 21] Post-publication [n = 16]

[n = 21] [n = 16]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

STM

Double blind [n = 429]

Double blind [n 429]

Single blind [n = 430]

0% 38% 20% 40% 17% 60% 14% 10% 80% 7% 100%

38%

17% 14% 10% 7%

24% 10% 13% 10% 5% 12% 6% 6% 12%

75%

75%

STM

Single blind [n = 430]

Open [n = 425]

24%

16%

8%

10%

13%

13%

9%

10%

8%

5%

15%

12%

6%

8%

6%

12%

14%

42%

42%

Open Open and Published [n = 425]

[n = 426]

Open and Published

Post-publication

[n = 426]

[n = 426]

16%

14%

14%

11%

8%

7%

7%

7%

13%

13%

13%

10%

7%

7%

11%

9%

7%

7%

7%

8%

12%

15%

6%

8%

12% 6% 8%

10% 5% 10%

8%

8%

8%

9%

14%

18%

18%

20%

14%

14%

6% 4%

6% 4%

Post-publication

11% 7% 10% 11% 7% 10% 5% 10% 9% 20%

[n 10 = - 426] very comfortable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very uncomfortable

Single blind

Single [n = 308] blind

[n = 308]

Double blind

Double [n = 173] blind

[n = 173]

Open

[n Open = 59]

[n = 59]

Open and published

Open [n and = published 24]

[n = 24]

Post-publication

Post-publication [n = 18]

[n = 18]

10 - very comfortable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very uncomfortable

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 68

42

PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 68

DIFFERENT MODELS 43

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 69


4R Different models Alternatives of peer review

4R

Q53

Q53

Q53

Alternatives

As an editor: please rate how comfortable you are with each of the following methods:

1 – very uncomfortable to 10 – very comfortable

As

each

an editor:

of the

please

following

rate how comfortable

methods

you are with each of the following methods:

Editors

only

Editors

only

STM HSS

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Double blind [n = 818]

0% 20%

56%

40% 60%

15% 13%

80%

7%

100%

Double Open blind [n [n = 818] 804]

Single Open blind [n [n = 817] 804]

Single Post-publication

blind [n = 817]

[n = 791]

Open Post-publication and Published

[n [n = = 791] 804]

1 – very uncomfortable to 10 – very comfortable

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

9%

10% 9%

10% 9%

5%

5% 5%

3% 5% 8% 7%

7% 9% 4% 3% 7% 8%

9%

7% 9%

7% 7%

56% 8%

7% 6%

7% 7% 6% 7%

6%

14%

7% 8% 6% 6% 11% 14% 4%

12% 11%

13% 12%

4% 6%

6% 6%

5%

11% 5%

11% 9%

11% 9%

10% 15%

10% 12% 10%

12% 11%

11% 11%

10% 13%

22% 7%

27% 22%

27%

27% 26%

Open

10

and

- very

Published

comfortable 7% 4% 9 7% 8 7% 7 6% 6 13% 5 6% 4 311%

2 11% 1 - very uncomfortable 26%

[n = 804]

10 - very comfortable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very uncomfortable

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Double blind [n = 421]

0% 20%

41%

40%

16%

60%

14% 8%

80%

5% 6%

100%

Double Single blind [n = 421] 422]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

28%

41%

10%

17% 16%

8% 14% 6%

9% 8%

5% 6% 6%

9%

Single Open blind [n [n = 422] 417]

16%

28%

8%

10% 10% 10%

17% 8%

14% 8%

6% 7%

9% 7%

6% 8%

14% 9%

Open Open and Published [n = 417]

[n = 415]

15% 16%

6% 8%

9% 10% 6%

10% 7%

8% 13%

14% 7%

7% 7%

7% 13%

8%

18% 14%

4 r DEMOGRAPHICS

As an editor: please rate how comfortable you are with

Demographics:

authors, reviewers

and editors

Open Post-publication and Published

[n [n = = 414] 415]

11% 15%

6% 6% 8% 9%

8% 6%

8% 7%

12% 13%

6% 7% 8% 7%

11% 13%

22% 18%

Post-publication

10 - very comfortable11%

9 6% 8 8% 7 8% 6 8% 5 12% 4 6% 3 8% 2 111%

- very uncomfortable 22%

[n = 414]

2015 Taylor 10 &- Francis very comfortable Peer Review Survey 9 8 – 7Top Level 6 Results 5 – 4 INTERNAL 3 2 REPORT 1 - very C uncomfortable

Will Frass 70

44

PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER) 45

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 70


D a

DA

D2

D2

Demographics (authors)

Demographics

Please indicate from the drop-down list below your

broad subject area

Please indicate from the drop-down list below your broad subject area:

Authors

only

D3

HSS

STM

Age

Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage

HSS

STM

20 Age - 29 105 18% 119 29%

Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage

30 - 39 238 41% 165 41%

20 29

40 - 49

105

116

18%

20%

119

67

29%

17%

30 39

50 - 59

238

79

41%

14%

165

36

41%

9%

40 49

60 - 69

116

40

20%

7%

67

12

17%

3%

50 - 59

70 or over

79

5

14%

1%

36

5

9%

1%

60 - 69

Total

40

583

7% 12

404

3%

70 or over 5 1% 5 1%

Total

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

583 404

41%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Demographics

Please select an age bracket below

41%

HSS

STM

HSS subjects Responses Percentage

Behavioural Sciences 112 19%

Humanities 103 17%

Education 88 15%

Public Health & Social Care 57 10%

Sociology (Ethnicity, Race, Gender, Development) 39 7%

Library & Information Science 38 6%

Business & Economics 35 6%

Arts 30 5%

Politics & International Relations 27 5%

Cultural Studies, Media & Communication 18 3%

Law & Criminology 16 3%

Geography 13 2%

Tourism, Leisure & Sport Studies 13 2%

Area Studies 3 1%

Total 592

STM subjects Responses Percentage

Medicine (Dentistry, Nursing, Pharmacy, Allied Heath) 125 30%

Biological Science 81 20%

Engineering & Technology 56 14%

Chemistry 42 10%

Environmental Science 29 7%

Agriculture & Food Science 28 7%

D a 2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 33

D4

18%

14%

20%

18%

7%

14%

0%

1%

7%

Under 20 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 or over

0%

1%

Under 20 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 or over

0%

41%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

29%

29%

41%

20%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

17%

17%

Under 20 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 603%

- 69 70 or over

0%

1%

Authors

Demographics

only

2015 Taylor & Francis Under Peer Review 20 20 Survey - 29 30 - – 39Top Level 40 - 49 Results 50 – - 59INTERNAL 60 - 69 REPORT 70 or C overWill Frass 33

DA

D4

Please indicate your gender

Please indicate your gender:

9%

9%

3%

1%

HSS STM

Mathematics 20 5%

Physics 11 3%

Materials Science 8 2%

Computer Science 8 2%

Geology 6 1%

Total 414

Gender

HSS

STM

Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage

Male 242 41% 241 58%

Female 353 59% 171 42%

Total 595 412

D5 Please select the sector you work in:

46 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

DEMOGRAPHICS 47


Age

HSS

STM

Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage

Demographics (reviewers)

D r DR D2 Please indicate from Demographics the drop-down list below your

broad subject area:

Reviewers

only

D3

20 - 29 132 6% 91 6%

30 - 39 865 36% 484 33%

Demographics

40 - 49 662 28% 395 27%

50 - 59 439 18% 319 22%

60 - 69 232 10% 127 9%

70 or over 56 2% 49 3%

Please select an age bracket below

Total 2386 1465

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

D2

Please indicate from the drop-down list below your broad subject area:

36%

HSS

STM

HSS subjects Responses Percentage

Behavioural Sciences 433 18%

Education 358 15%

Business & Economics 308 13%

Humanities 268 11%

Public Health & Social Care 213 9%

Politics & International Relations 203 8%

Sociology (Ethnicity, Race, Gender, Development) 200 8%

Cultural Studies, Media & Communication 144 6%

Geography 79 3%

Tourism, Leisure & Sport Studies 64 3%

Law & Criminology 53 2%

Arts 49 2%

Library & Information Science 38 2%

Area Studies 21 1%

Total 2431

STM subjects Responses Percentage

Medicine (Dentistry, Nursing, Pharmacy, Allied Heath) 489 33%

Engineering & Technology 255 17%

Biological Science 228 15%

Environmental Science 134 9%

Chemistry 105 7%

Mathematics 95 6%

D r 2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 57

D4

DR

0%

6%

28%

18%

10%

Under 20 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 or over

0%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

6%

33%

27%

22%

Under 20 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 or over

Demographics

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 57

D4

Please indicate your gender

Please indicate your gender:

9%

2%

3%

Reviewers

only

HSS STM

Agriculture & Food Science 72 5%

Materials Science 38 3%

Physics 27 2%

Geology 26 2%

Computer Science 25 2%

Total 1494

Gender

HSS

STM

Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage

Male 102 49% 1020 68%

Female 1241 51% 470 32%

Total 1343 1490

48 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

DEMOGRAPHICS 49

DE

Demographics

Editors

only


Age

Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage

20 - 29 6 HSS 1% 3 STM 1%

Age

30 - 39 Respondents 111 Percentage 14% Respondents 68 Percentage 17%

20 40 - 29 49 230 6 29% 1% 90 3 23% 1%

Demographics (editors)

30 50 - 39 59 111 221 14% 28% 129 68 17% 33%

Demographics

40 60 - 49 69 230 162 29% 21% 90 75 23% 19%

7050 or - over 59 221 52 28% 7% 129 33% 7%

D e D2 Please indicate from the drop-down list below your

DE

D2

broad subject area

Demographics

Please indicate from the drop-down list below your broad subject area:

Editors

only

D3

60 Total - 69 162 782 21% 394 75 19%

70 or over 52 7% 29 7%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Total 782 394

Please select an age bracket below

29%

Humanities and Social Science 28% Researchers

14%

0% 1%

7%

Under 20 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 or over

Demographics

0% 1%

D e 2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 81

29%

28%

21%

HSS

HSS subjects Responses Percentage

Education 143 18%

Behavioural Sciences 141 18%

Humanities 114 14%

Business & Economics 101 13%

Sociology (Ethnicity, Race, Gender, Development) 58 7%

Politics & International Relations 55 7%

Public Health & Social Care 51 6%

Cultural Studies, Media & Communication 37 5%

DR

D4

14%

21%

Under 20 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 or over

Please indicate your gender: Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

7%

Reviewers

only

HSS

Tourism, Leisure & Sport Studies 24 3%

33%

Geography 23 3%

Arts 22 3%

Law & Criminology 16 2%

Library & Information Science 7 1%

Area Studies 6 1%

Total 798

Gender

Scientific, Technical HSS and Medical Researchers STM

33%

Respondents Percentage 23% Respondents Percentage

Male 102

17%

49% 1020 19% 68%

Female 1241 51% 23%

470 32%

19%

Total 1343 17%

1490

7%

STM

STM subjects Responses Percentage

Medicine (Dentistry, Nursing, Pharmacy, Allied Heath) 136 34%

Biological Science 66 17%

Engineering & Technology 47 12%

D4

DE

0% 1%

Under 20 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 or over

0% 1%

2015 Taylor & Francis Under Peer Review 20 20 Survey - 29 30 - – 39Top Level 40 - 49 Results 50 – - 59INTERNAL 60 - 69 REPORT 70 or C overWill Frass 81

D4

Please indicate your gender

Please indicate your gender:

Demographics

7%

Editors

only

STM

Mathematics 36 9%

Environmental Science 33 8%

Agriculture & Food Science 26 7%

Chemistry 14 4%

Computer Science 13 3%

Materials Science 10 3%

Geology 10 3%

Gender

HSS

STM

Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage

Male 457 57% 308 77%

Female 339 43% 91 23%

Total 796 399

Physics 9 2%

Total 400

50 PEER REVIEW IN 2015 A GLOBAL VIEW (A TAYLOR & FRANCIS WHITE PAPER)

DEMOGRAPHICS 51


Peer review in 2015: a global view

Read the accompanying white paper at

authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com


About Taylor & Francis Group

Taylor & Francis Group publishes specialist academic books and journals. We produce unique,

trusted content by expert authors, spreading knowledge and promoting discovery globally.

We aim to broaden thinking and advance understanding, providing academics and professionals

with a platform to share ideas and realize their individual potential.

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to the input of a large number of individuals, without whom this white paper

would not have been possible. A huge thank you to everyone who took the time to answer the

survey and take part in focus groups, all of whom are anonymous here but who gave such lively

and varied contributions.

All research was designed and conducted on behalf of Taylor & Francis by Will Frass (survey),

Elaine Devine and Bernie Folan (focus groups), with support from Leila Jones, Jessica Feinstein,

Rohays Perry, Jo Cross, Jennie McMillan, Chris Bennett, James Hardcastle, Roseanna Norman

and Tiff Drake. Focus groups conducted in South Africa and China were run by the Taylor

& Francis regional teams (Brenda Foo, Oscar Masinyana, Lisa Yao and Monica Xiao) with

guidance from Elaine Devine. This white paper was authored by Bernie Folan Consultancy, with

contributions from Elaine Devine and Will Frass.

More magazines by this user