Data file

Peer review 

A global view 

Motivations, training and support in peer review 

(key survey data) 

Insight supplement from Taylor & Francis 

JULY 2016 

© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group CC BY-NC

Contents 

Responses from authors .................................................................. 4 

3 Motivations for peer review ................................................................................... 5 

Training .................................................................................................................. 7 

Responses from reviewers .......................................................... 10 

Motivations for peer review................................................................................... 11 

Training ................................................................................................................. 17 

Introduction 

What motivates researchers to be a peer reviewer? 

How do you become a reviewer for a peer reviewed journal? 

What support would researchers like when they review a paper (or 

even before they accept that first invitation)? 

Responses from editors.................................................................... 20 

Motivations for peer review .................................................................................. 21 

Training .................................................................................................................. 25 

Locating reviewers ................................................................................................ 26 

Peer review: a global view 


Read the accompanying insight supplement at 

authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com 

Further Reading 

Peer review in 2015 (white paper and key survey data) 

References and acknowledgments 

For full survey demographics please see key survey data. 

The survey data presented here forms part of the 

research conducted by Taylor & Francis in 2015, 

presented in the insight supplement Peer review: a global 

view – motivations, training and support in peer review 

(available on authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com). 

The supplement brings together survey results 

and focus group findings from one of the largest 

international research studies on peer review in recent 

years, and forms part of a series begun with Peer review 

in 2015: a global view. 

The first release focused on opinions on the purpose 

of peer review (expectation versus reality), the process 

and its mechanics, the place and experience of ethics 

in peer review, and different models of review. This 

supplement examines the motivations behind reviewing, 

and what training and support researchers would like to 

see in place, across the disciplines and roles of author, 

reviewer and journal editor. 

For the research methodology (qualitative and 

quantitative) please see the insights supplement and for 

full demographics for the online survey please view key 

survey data from Peer review in 2015: a global view. 

Survey data key 

The sections colored pink were answered by 

those who identified themselves as authors. 

The sections colored orange were answered 

by those who identified themselves as 

reviewers and authors. 

The sections colored yellow were answered 

by those who identified themselves as journal 

editors, reviewers and authors. 

PEER REVIEW A GLOBAL VIEW INTRODUCTION 3

5 a Motivations for Peer Review 

Authors 

only 

5A 

Motivations for Peer Review 

Q21 As an author: please rate how strongly you agree or disagree 

that each of the following is a motivation for submitting your 

Q21 As research an author: please to a rate peer how strongly reviewed you agree journal or disagree that each of the following is a motivation for 

HSS 

submitting your research to a peer reviewed journal: 

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree 

Responses 

from authors 

Making a contribution to scholarly communication in 

my field [n = 606] 

Sharing my research with others in my field and 

beyond [n = 607] 

Humanities and Social Science Researchers 

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

40% 

40% 

22% 

24% 

18% 

15% 

9% 

10% 

HSS 

Enhancing my reputation or furthering my career 

[n = 606] 

40% 

18% 

16% 

12% 

6% 

Demonstrating that I have conducted an original 

piece of research [n = 608] 

33% 

22% 

17% 

11% 

7% 

Motivations, 

training and support 

in peer review 

Receiving feedback from my peers [n = 609] 

Institutional requirement to fulfil a quota of peer 

reviewed papers [n = 608] 

Dependence of future funding upon the number of 

peer reviewed papers published [n = 607] 

22% 

22% 

21% 

17% 

12% 13% 

20% 

9% 

15% 

8% 7% 

10% 11% 10% 7% 10% 

9% 8% 

7% 8% 13% 

6% 15% 

Pressure to publish peer reviewed papers from 

government or funding bodies [n = 609] 

14% 

8% 

11% 

8% 

7% 

12% 

9% 

8% 

19% 

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

4 PEER REVIEW A GLOBAL VIEW 

MOTIVATIONS FOR PEER REVIEW 5

6A 

Training 

Q22 

As an author who has not peer reviewed a paper before: is this something you would like to 

5 a 


6A 

6 a 

Training 

Training 

Yes / No / Unsure 

Authors 

only 

5A 


Q21 As an author: please rate how strongly you agree or disagree 


Q21 As an author: please rate how strongly you agree or disagree that each of the following is a motivation for 

research submitting your to research a peer to a peer reviewed journal: 

STM 


Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers 

Authors 

only 

Q22 


[n = 598] 

As an author who has not peer reviewed a paper before: is this something you would like to do in the future? 

Q22 As an author who has not peer reviewed a paper before: is 

this something you would like to do in the future? 

Yes / No / Unsure 


[n = 598] 

22% 

6% 

STM 








[n = 418] 








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

32% 

29% 

29% 

27% 

20% 

17% 

15% 

14% 

12% 

11% 

8% 

16% 

13% 

17% 

19% 

19% 

19% 

16% 

14% 

12% 

20% 

11% 

18% 

13% 

11% 

19% 

21% 

20% 

12% 

15% 

10% 

11% 

15% 

11% 

12% 

13% 

12% 

11% 

11% 

8% 

7% 6% 

7% 

7% 6% 

6% 

7% 

7% 

11% 

10% 7% 


7% 

9% 

11% 

22% 

22% 

6% 

72% 

Yes Unsure No 


[n = 410] 

9% 

22% 

72% 

Yes Unsure No 


[n = 410] 

9% 

69% 

HSS STM 

69% 

Yes Unsure No 


MOTIVATIONS FOR PEER REVIEW / TRAINING 7 

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 27 

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

STM HSS 

6 a 

6A 

6A 

Q23 

Training 

Training 

Training 

Despite not having peer reviewed a paper – have you received any of the following training, guidance or 

Despite 

mentoring 

not 

on 

having 

peer 

peer 

review 

reviewed 

practices? 

a paper – have you received any of the following training, guidance or 

mentoring on peer review practices? 

Yes / No – but I would like to / No – I am not interested 

Q23 Q23 Despite not having peer reviewed a paper – have you received 

any of the following training, guidance or mentoring on peer 

review practices? Yes / No – but I would like to / No – I am not interested 

23% 

21% 

64% 

67% 

14% 

Authors 

Authors only 

only 

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

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

Supervisor involved me in the peer review of a paper 

23% 

56% 

21% 

Supervisor involved me 

[n 

in 

= 

the 

791] 

peer review of a paper 

23% 

56% 

21% 

[n = 791] 

Publisher guidelines and advice [n = 817] 

Journal Editor guidelines and advice [n = 818] 

Attended a workshop or other formal training 

15% 

64% 

21% 

Attended a workshop 

[n = 

or 

804] 

other formal training 

15% 

64% 

21% 

[n = 804] 

Yes No - but I would like to No - I am not interested 


Supervisor involved me 

[n 

in 

= 

the 

411] 

peer review of a paper 

[n = 411] 





23% 

21% 



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


28% 

38% 

64% 

67% 

61% 

49% 

14% 

12% 

12% 

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

28% 

38% 

61% 

49% 

13% 

13% 

11% 

11% 

6 a 

6A 

Training 

Training 

Q25 If you were asked to peer review a paper tomorrow – how 

Q25 

confident 

If you were asked 

would 

to peer review 

you 

a 

feel 

paper tomorrow 

about 

– 

undertaking 

how confident would 

the 

you feel 

review? 

about 

6A 

undertaking the review? 

Training 

1 – not at all confident to 10 – very confident 

Authors 

only 

Order of Labels 

corrected for 

Version 4 of 

Authors 

this report 

only 

Q25 


If you were asked to peer review a paper tomorrow – how confident would you feel about Order of Labels 

undertaking the review? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% corrected 100% for 

Version 4 of 

If you were asked to peer review 1 – not a at all confident to 10 – very confident 

this report 

paper tomorrow - how confident 

10% 8% 16% 20% 14% 9% 9% 6% 5% 

would you feel about undertaking the 

review? [n = 607] 


10 - very confident 9 80% 7 620% 5 440% 3 2 60% 1 - not at 80% all confident100% 

If you were asked to peer review a 



review? [n = 607] 

10% 8% 16% 20% 14% 9% 9% 6% 5% 


10 - very confident 9 8 

0% 

7 6 

20% 

5 4 

40% 

3 2 

60% 

1 - not at 

80% 

all confident 

100% 




14% 7% 19% 21% 8% 10% 6% 8% 5% 

review? [n = 422] 


10 - very confident 9 80% 7 620% 5 440% 3 2 60% 1 - not at 80% all confident100% 




review? [n = 422] 

14% 7% 19% 21% 8% 10% 6% 8% 5% 

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

HSS STM 


27% 

64% 

10% 


27% 

64% 

10% 


22% 

63% 

15% 

Attended a workshop 

[n = 

or 

413] 

other formal training 

22% 

63% 

15% 

[n = 413] 






TRAINING 9 

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 30

5R 

Q37 


5 r Motivations for Peer Review 

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


Q37 

submitting research your research to a peer to a peer reviewed journal: journal. 

HSS 

As an author: please rate how strongly you agree or disagree that each of the following is a motivation for 


Reviewers 

only 

Responses 

from reviewers 




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

43% 

21% 

18% 

9% 

HSS 


beyond [n = 2473] 

41% 

20% 

19% 

9% 


[n = 2468] 

39% 

20% 

18% 

10% 



32% 

20% 

20% 

10% 

6% 5% 

Motivations, 






22% 

27% 

18% 

13% 

19% 

14% 

14% 9% 

11% 6% 7% 

8% 

9% 



22% 

13% 

14% 

11% 

6% 

9% 

10% 



15% 

8% 

12% 

9% 

8% 

10% 7% 8% 

18% 





5 r 


5R 

Q37 

Q37 

STM 


As a reviewer: please rate how strongly you agree or 

disagree that each of the following is a motivation for 

submitting your research to a peer reviewed journal. 




Reviewers 

only 

5R 


Q38 As a reviewer: please rate how strongly you agree or 

disagree that each of the following is a motivation to 

Q38 peer-review papers. 

HSS 

Reviewers 

only 

As a reviewer: please rate how strongly you agree or disagree that each of the following is a motivation to peerreview 

papers: 




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

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

HSS 


beyond [n = 1499] 

36% 

23% 

18% 

10% 

Playing your part as a member of the academic 

community [n = 2473] 

45% 

20% 

19% 

10% 



35% 

20% 

20% 

11% 

Reciprocating the benefit gained when others review 

your papers [n = 2459] 

31% 

19% 

21% 

12% 

5% 6% 



30% 

21% 

19% 

11% 

6% 

7% 

Enjoy being able to help improve the paper 

[n = 2470] 

24% 

18% 

23% 

16% 

8% 

6% 


[n = 1502] 

29% 

18% 

20% 

12% 

7% 

8% 

Enjoy seeing new work ahead of publication 

[n = 2469] 

20% 

13% 

20% 

16% 

11% 

9% 


22% 

18% 

19% 

13% 

9% 

10% 

To improve your own article writing style [n = 2466] 

14% 

13% 

15% 

13% 

12% 

11% 

7% 

STM 





23% 

18% 

12% 18% 

12% 13% 11% 

12% 

9% 

9% 

11% 

9% 

7% 

7% 

9% 

To enhance your reputation or further your career 

[n = 2455] 

Personal recognition from, or opportunity to build a 

relationship with, the journal editor [n = 2460] 

12% 

7% 6% 

11% 

10% 

14% 14% 12% 

9% 11% 14% 7% 

12% 

9% 

6% 

11% 

7% 

15% 

7% 



18% 

9% 

13% 

11% 

9% 

11% 7% 

7% 

10% 

To increase the chance of being offered a role in the 

journal's editorial team [n = 2466] 

7% 

9% 

9% 

9% 

14% 

8% 

10% 

11% 

18% 






5R 


Q38 As a reviewer: please rate how strongly you agree or 

disagree that each of the following is a motivation to 

Q38 peer-review papers. 

STM 

Reviewers 

only 

As a reviewer: please rate how strongly you agree or disagree that each of the following is a motivation to peerreview 

papers: 


5 r 


5R 


Q39 Please rate whether the following would make you more 

Please or less rate whether likely the to following review would for make a journal. 

you more or less likely to review for a journal: 

Q39 

HSS 

1 – much less likely to 10 – much more likely 


Reviewers 

only 


Playing your part as a member of the academic 

community [n = 1503] 

Enjoy being able to help improve the paper 

[n = 1498] 

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

21% 

34% 

19% 

19% 

23% 

22% 

16% 

13% 

10% 

6% 

Free access to the journal [n = 2468] 

Waiver of colour, open access or other publishing 

charges [n = 2417] 

Appearing in a published list of reviewers [n = 2472] 

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

15% 

24% 

22% 

10% 

12% 

11% 

16% 

13% 

15% 

13% 

10% 

11% 

9% 

12% 

10% 

19% 

16% 

24% 

6% 

HSS 

Reciprocating the benefit gained when others review 

your papers [n = 1494] 

23% 

17% 

21% 

13% 

8% 

8% 

Payment by the journal [n = 2465] 

21% 

8% 

11% 

9% 

9% 

17% 

5% 5% 5% 

10% 

Enjoy seeing new work ahead of publication 

[n = 1494] 

18% 

16% 

19% 

17% 

10% 

10% 

A certificate or record of your participation in the 

peer review process [n = 2457] 

13% 

8% 

11% 

9% 

10% 

21% 

6% 6% 

11% 

To improve your own article writing style 

[n = 1499] 

14% 

14% 

17% 

13% 

11% 

11% 

6% 

Entry into a competition to win a prize for the most 

effective and timely review [n = 2464] 

9% 

7% 

10% 

7% 

10% 

19% 

5% 

8% 

8% 

18% 

STM 

To enhance your reputation or further your career 

[n = 1495] 

To increase the chance of being offered a role in the 

journal's editorial team [n = 1496] 

12% 

8% 

8% 

11% 

10% 

17% 

10% 

8% 

14% 

13% 

11% 

12% 

10% 

11% 

7% 6% 6% 

16% 

Your name being published alongside the paper as 

one of the reviewers [n = 2458] 

Your name as reviewer disclosed to the author 

[n = 2450] 

6% 

7% 

7% 

9% 

21% 

24% 

9% 10% 12% 

11% 11% 13% 

19% 

21% 

Personal recognition from, or opportunity to build a 

relationship with, the journal editor [n = 1490] 

7% 

7% 

10% 

11% 

9% 

13% 7% 


10% 

12% 

14% 

Your reviewer's report being published anonymously 

alongside the paper [n = 2463] 

Your reviewer's report being published with your 

name alongside the paper [n = 2458] 

6% 8% 

6% 

22% 

16% 10% 

9% 

11% 

12% 

15% 

14% 

21% 

30% 


14 

PEER REVIEW A GLOBAL VIEW 


STM 


5R 


Q39 Please rate whether the following would make you more or 

less likely to review for a journal. 

Q39 

STM 

Please rate whether the following would make you more or less likely to review for a journal: 





A certificate or record of your participation in the 

peer review process [n = 1493] 

Payment by the journal [n = 1493] 



Your name being published alongside the paper as 

one of the reviewers [n = 1489] 

Your name as reviewer disclosed to the author 

[n = 1488] 

Your reviewer's report being published anonymously 


Your reviewer's report being published with your 

name alongside the paper [n = 1485] 

1 – much less likely to 10 – much more likely 


15% 

16% 

16% 

10% 

25% 

24% 

7% 

7% 

6% 

8% 

10% 

11% 

7% 

7% 

6% 

7% 

9% 

6% 6% 7% 

14% 

10% 

7% 

9% 

8% 

9% 

15% 

12% 

9% 

9% 

7% 

17% 

15% 

16% 

12% 

11% 

7% 

26% 

22% 

18% 

21% 

8% 

11% 

9% 

12% 

10% 

19% 

7% 

8% 

9% 

12% 

8% 

8% 

17% 

9% 

10% 

9% 

10% 

15% 

22% 

6% 

13% 

11% 

14% 

9% 

10% 

11% 

12% 

7% 

Reviewers 

only 

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


9% 

15% 

18% 

16% 

15% 

16% 

22% 

6 r 

6R 

6R 

Q40 

Training 

Training 

Q40 As a reviewer: have you received any of the following training, 

Q40 guidance or mentoring 

Yes / No 

on 

– but 

peer 

I would 

review 

like to / No 

practices? 

– I am not interested 

Reviewers 

only 

Reviewers 

only 

As a reviewer: have you received any of the following training, guidance or mentoring on peer review practices? 

Yes / No – but I would like to / No – I am not interested 

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


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

Journal Editor guidelines and advice 

49% 

41% 11% 

[n = 2,468] 


49% 

41% 11% 

[n = 2,468] 

Publisher guidelines and advice [n = 2,469] 35% 

43% 

21% 

Publisher guidelines and advice [n = 2,469] 35% 

43% 


28% 

28% 

44% 

[n = 2,443] 


28% 

28% 

44% 

[n = 2,443] 


9% 

51% 

40% 

[n = 2,458] 


9% 

51% 

40% 

[n = 2,458] 



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


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


45% 

44% 11% 

[n = 1,503] 


45% 

44% 11% 

[n = 1,503] 

Publisher guidelines and advice [n = 1,505] 

Training 

As a reviewer: have you received any of the following training, guidance or mentoring on peer review practices? 



Publisher guidelines and advice [n = 1,505] 


[n = 1,487] 

37% 

30% 

33% 


[n = 1,487] 

37% 

30% 

33% 


[n = 1,494] 

12% 

55% 

34% 


[n = 1,494] 

12% 

55% 

34% 


41% 

41% 

43% 

43% 

21% 

16% 

16% 

HSS STM 

16 



TRAINING 17 

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 52

6 r Training 

Q42 If you were asked to peer review a paper tomorrow – how 

confident would you feel about Training undertaking the review? 

6R 

Reviewers 

only 

6 r 

6R 

Training 

6R 

Training 

Q43 Thinking back to the first paper you peer reviewed – how did 

this opportunity arise? 

Q43 

Q43 

Thinking 

Thinking 

back 

back 

to 

to 

the 

the 

first 

first 

paper 

paper 

you 

you 

peer 

peer 

reviewed 

reviewed – 

how 

how 

did 

did 

this 

this 

opportunity 

opportunity 

arise? 

arise? 

Reviewers 

Reviewers 

only 

only 

Q42 

If you were asked to peer review a paper tomorrow – how confident would you feel about undertaking the 

review? 

Humanities 

Humanities 

and 

and 

Social 

Social 

Science 

Science 

Researchers 

Researchers 

[n 

[n = 

2,469] 

2,469] 


46% 

46% 

HSS 

STM 

6R 

Reviewers 

Training 

only 


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

When you are asked to peer review a 

Q42 If you were asked to peer review a paper tomorrow – how confident would you feel about undertaking the 

paper - how confident do you feel 

review? 

16% 21% 30% 19% 7% 

about undertaking the review? 

[n = 2,459] 




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

When you are asked to peer Scientific, review a Technical and Medical Researchers 

paper - how confident do you feel 0% 16% 20% 21% 40% 30% 60% 19% 80% 7% 100% 


When you are [n asked = 2,459] to peer review a 


17% 20% 27% 19% 7% 

about 10 - undertaking very confident the review? 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - not at all confident 

[n = 1,501] 


When you are asked to peer review a 



[n = 1,501] 


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

17% 20% 27% 19% 7% 

I 

was 

was 

approached 

approached 

by 

by 

the 

the 

Editor/Editorial 


Board 

Board 

member, 

member, 

who 

who I 

don't 

don't 

know 

know 

21% 

21% 

19% 

19% 

5% 

5% 

I 

was 

was 

approached 

approached 

by 

by 

the 

the 



Board 

Board 

member, 

member, 

who 

who I 

know 

know 

My 

My 

supervisor 

supervisor 

I 

added 

added 

my 

my 

name 

name 

and 

and 

invited/recommended 


details 

details 

to 

to a 

list 

list 

of 

of 

me 

me 

potential 

potential 

reviewers 

reviewers 

for 

for 

the 

the 

journal 

journal 

Scientific, 

Scientific, 

Technical 

Technical 

and 

and 

Medical 

Medical 

Researchers 

Researchers 

[n 

[n = 

1,509] 

1,509] 

46% 

46% 

25% 

25% 

12% 

12% 

6% 

6% 

8% 

8% 

Other 

Other 

11% 

11% 

HSS STM 


I 

was 

was 

approached 

approached 

by 

by My 

My 

supervisor 

supervisor 

I was 

was 

approached 

approached 

by 

by 

the 

the 





the 

the 



Board 

Board 

member, 

member, 

who 

who 

I 

me 

me 

Board 

Board 

member, 

member, 

who 

who 

I 

don't 

don't 

know 

know 

know 

know 

I added 

added 

my 

my 

name 

name 

and 

and 

details 

details 

to 

to 

a list 

list 

of 

of 

potential 

potential 

reviewers 

reviewers 

for 

for 

the 

the 

journal 

journal 

Other 

Other 

18 


The 

The 

following 

following 

options 

options 

were 

were 

selected 

selected 

by 

by 

fewer 

fewer 

than 

than 

5% 

5% 

of 

of 

respondents 

respondents 

and 

and 

have 

have 

been 

been 

included 

included 

in 

in 

“Other” 

“Other” 

above: 

above: 

HSS STM 

HSS STM 

The author mentioned me as suitable reviewer 1% 5% 

The author mentioned me as a suitable reviewer 1% 5% 

The society associated with the journal offers members the chance to review 1% 2% 

The society associated with the journal offers members the chance to review 1% 2% 

I contacted the Editor/Editorial Board member and asked to be added to the reviewer list 1% 1% 

TRAINING 19

5 e Motivations for Peer Review 

5E 

Q56 

Q56 

HSS 


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


research to a peer reviewed journal. 




Editors 

only 

Responses 

from editors 






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

48% 

45% 

20% 

22% 

16% 

15% 

8% 

7% 

HSS 


[n = 833] 

39% 

18% 

18% 

11% 



33% 

18% 

17% 

10% 

6% 

Motivations, 






24% 

28% 

15% 

11% 

18% 

16% 

15% 9% 

9% 7% 6% 

8% 

10% 



21% 

14% 

16% 

9% 

8% 

8% 

9% 



18% 

8% 

14% 

10% 

8% 

10% 6% 8% 

15% 




5 e 5E Motivations for Motivations Peer for Review Peer Review 

Q56 

Q56 

STM 


submitting As an your author: research to please a peer reviewed rate journal: how strongly you agree or 

disagree that each of the following is a motivation for 


submitting your research to a peer reviewed journal? 

Editors 

only 

5E 

Q57 

HSS 


Q57 


In your role as an editor: which best describes the situation 

regarding the following options offered to reviewers? 

Editors 

only 

In your role as an editor: which best describes the situation regarding the following options offered to reviewers: 

Currently offer this / Plan to offer this / Would like to offer this / No interest in offering this 




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

42% 

28% 

12% 

8% 


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


55% 

7% 24% 14% 

HSS 



42% 

26% 

11% 

10% 


34% 

6% 

41% 

19% 

Enhancing my reputation or furthering my career [n 

= 426] 

34% 

23% 

15% 

12% 

A certificate or record of participation in the peer 

review process [n = 763] 

12% 

40% 

44% 



32% 

22% 

16% 

11% 

7% 



Payment for time spent [n = 763] 

12% 

41% 

40% 

54% 

44% 


23% 

22% 

16% 

15% 

7% 

7% 



32% 

63% 



25% 

16% 

19% 

10% 

8% 

6% 

7% 

Reviewer's name as reviewer disclosed to the 

author [n = 758] 

6% 

17% 

74% 

STM 





21% 

22% 

13% 

10% 

16% 

15% 

10% 

12% 

8% 

7% 

9% 

9% 

11% 5% 5% 10% 


Reviewer's name being published alongside the 

paper as one of the reviewers [n = 758] 

The reviewer's report being published anonymously 


The review's report being published with your name 


Currently offer this Plan to offer this Would like to offer this No interest in offering this 

14% 

10% 

18% 

77% 

83% 

87% 

22 


MOTIVATIONS FOR PEER REVIEW / TRAINING 23

STM 


5E 


Q57 In your role as an editor: which best describes the situation 

Q57 regarding the following options offered to reviewers 

STM 

Editors 

only 

In your role as an editor: which best describes the situation regarding the following options offered to reviewers: 

Currently offer this / Plan to offer this / Would like to offer this / No interest in offering this 





A certificate or record of participation in the peer 

review process [n = 399] 

Payment for time spent [n = 398] 



Reviewer's name as reviewer disclosed to the 

author [n = 396] 

Reviewer's name being published alongside the 

paper as one of the reviewers [n = 396] 

The reviewer's report being published anonymously 


The review's report being published with your name 



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

Currently offer this Plan to offer this Would like to offer this No interest in offering this 

7% 

16% 

15% 

7% 

6% 

32% 

46% 

10% 

7% 

23% 

16% 

26% 

28% 

43% 

39% 

8% 

8% 

47% 

51% 

46% 

31% 

62% 

62% 

68% 

74% 

50% 

51% 

27% 

27% 

14% 

15% 

6 e 6E Training 

6E 

Q58 

Q58 

Q58 

Editors 

Training 

only 

Editors 

Training 

only 

As an editor: do you offer any of the following training, guidance or mentoring to first-time reviewers on your 

journal? 

As an editor: do you offer any of the following training, 

guidance or 

Yes 

mentoring 

/ No – but I would 

to 

like 

first-time 

to offer this / No 

reviewers 

– I have no plans 

on 

to 

your 

offer this 

journal? 

As an editor: do you offer any of the following training, guidance or mentoring to first-time reviewers on your 

journal? 

Your own guidelines and advice 

Signposting to publisher guidelines [n = 765] and advice 

[n = 759] 

Signposting to publisher guidelines and advice 

Encourage supervisor [n = involvement 759] in the peer 

review of a paper 

[n = 750] 

Encourage supervisor involvement in the peer 

review of a paper 

Workshops [n = or 750] other formal training 

[n = 746] 

Yes / No – but I would like to offer this / No – I have no plans to offer this 


Your own guidelines and advice 

[n = 765] 

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


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

58% 

25% 18% 

12% 

6% 

58% 

44% 

44% 

29% 

29% 

38% 

Workshops or other formal training 

6% 38% 

56% 

Yes [n No = 746] - but I would like to offer this No - I have no plans to offer this 

32% 

25% 

58% 

56% 

Yes No - but I would like to offer this No - I have no plans to offer this 

17% 

10% 

42% 

40% 

40% 

36% 

46% 

34% 

38% 

38% 

46% 

44% 

18% 

24% 

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

Your own guidelines and advice [n = 390] 

42% 

34% 

24% 

Your own guidelines and advice [n = 390] 

Signposting to publisher guidelines and advice [n = 

390] 

Signposting to publisher guidelines and advice [n = 

Encourage supervisor 390] involvement in the peer 

review of a paper [n = 390] 

Encourage supervisor involvement in the peer 

review of a paper [n = 390] 

Workshops or other formal training [n = 388] 

12% 

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


17% 

36% 

32% 


58% 

46% 

24% 

24% 

22% 

22% 

HSS STM 

Workshops or other formal training [n = 388] 10% 

46% 

44% 


24 




TRAINING 25

6 e Locating reviewers 

6E 

Training 

Q59 6E When you receive a manuscript Training – how easy is it to find 

Q59 academics willing to peer review the paper? 

When you receive a manuscript – how easy is it to find academics willing to peer review the paper? 

Editors 

only 

Editors 

only 


6E 

Q60 

Q60 

Training 

How often do you find people to peer review manuscripts for 

your journal via the following methods? 

How often do you find people to peer review manuscripts for your journal via the following methods? 

Editors 

only 

Q59 

1 – very difficult to 10 – very easy 

When you receive a manuscript – how easy is it to find academics willing to peer review the paper? 

HSS 

1 – never use this to 10 – use this every time 

1 – very difficult to 10 – very easy 



HSS 

When you receive a manuscript - 

how easy is it to find academics 

willing to peer review the paper? 

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

0% 8% 20% 14% 12% 40% 18% 60% 12% 18% 80% 9% 100% 

When you receive [n = 790] a manuscript - 


8% 14% 12% 18% 12% 18% 9% 


10 - very [n easy = 790] 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very difficult 

I use Editorial Board members as 

reviewers [n = 765] 

I ask Editorial Board members to 

suggest experts in their fields [n = 

763] 

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

14% 

12% 

10% 

12% 

21% 

21% 

14% 

13% 

7% 

7% 

11% 

8% 

6% 

6% 

8% 

10% 

HSS 

10 - very easy 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very difficult 

I contact authors who have submitted 

to the journal, but not reviewed [n = 

759] 

6% 

16% 

17% 

11% 

11% 

6% 

6% 

18% 


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

I ask colleagues to recommend early 

career academics they work with 

[n = 758] 

6% 

14% 

12% 

9% 

10% 

6% 

7% 

6% 

26% 

STM 

When you receive a manuscript - 



0% 9% 20% 14% 10% 40% 17% 60% 11% 19% 80% 10% 100% 

When you receive [n = 405] a manuscript - 


9% 14% 10% 17% 11% 19% 10% 


10 - very [n easy = 405] 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very difficult 

10 - very easy 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very difficult 

I search Web of Science for 

researchers publishing in related fields 

[n = 754] 

I ask authors to suggest suitable 

reviewers when they submit their 

manuscripts 

[n = 755] 

I use an online reviewer locator tool 

[n = 758] 

6% 

6% 

6% 12% 

6% 6% 

7% 

7% 7% 

7% 

9% 

8% 

6% 

7% 7% 

8% 10% 

67% 

36% 

38% 

I publish a call for reviewers in the 

journal/on a society website or 

listserv 

[n = 756] 

8% 

65% 

10 - use this every time 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - never use this 


LOCATING REVIEWERS 27


6E 

Training 

Editors 

only 

Q60 How often do you find people to peer review manuscripts 

Q60 

for your journal via the following methods? 

How often do you find people to peer review manuscripts for your journal via the following methods? 

STM 

1 – never use this to 10 – use this every time 


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

I search Web of Science for 

researchers publishing in related fields 

[n = 397] 

I ask authors to suggest suitable 

reviewers when they submit their 

manuscripts 

[n = 394] 

14% 

13% 

6% 

12% 

13% 

17% 

14% 

13% 

8% 

8% 

12% 

10% 

6% 

6% 

9% 

15% 

14% 

Peer review: a global view 


For full survey demographics please see key survey data. 

I ask Editorial Board members to 

suggest experts in their fields [n = 

395] 

9% 

9% 

12% 

15% 

7% 

10% 

9% 

5% 

19% 

Further Reading 

Peer review in 2015 (white paper and key survey data) 

I use Editorial Board members as 

reviewers [n = 396] 

I contact authors who have submitted 

to the journal, but not reviewed [n = 

392] 

7% 7% 

6% 

11% 

13% 

12% 

14% 

9% 

9% 

10% 

13% 

11% 

7% 7% 

9% 

7% 

19% 

20% 

References and acknowledgements 

#tfpeerreview 

STM 

I ask colleagues to recommend early 

career academics they work with 

[n = 393] 

9% 

10% 

13% 

10% 

9% 

7% 

7% 

8% 

23% 

I use an online reviewer locator tool 

[n = 395] 

9% 

6% 

7% 

3% 

7% 

6% 

7% 

46% 

I publish a call for reviewers in the 

journal/on a society website or 

listserv 

[n = 395] 

10% 

63% 

10 - use this every time 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - never use this 

28 

PEER REVIEW A GLOBAL VIEW

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.

Data file

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?