Key data

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