Data file

TFEMPTeam

Peer review in 2015 supplement

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

Motivations, training and support in peer review

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

Motivations for Peer Review

6A

6 a

Training

Training

Yes / No / Unsure

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 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

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Authors

only

Q22

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

[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

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

[n = 598]

22%

6%

STM

Sharing my research with others in my field and

beyond [n = 419]

Demonstrating that I have conducted an original

piece of research [n = 416]

Making a contribution to scholarly communication in

my field [n = 418]

Enhancing my reputation or furthering my career

[n = 418]

Receiving feedback from my peers [n = 415]

Dependence of future funding upon the number of

peer reviewed papers published [n = 417]

Institutional requirement to fulfil a quota of peer

reviewed papers [n = 420]

Pressure to publish peer reviewed papers from

government or funding bodies [n = 419]

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%

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

7%

9%

11%

22%

22%

6%

72%

Yes Unsure No

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

[n = 410]

9%

22%

72%

Yes Unsure No

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

[n = 410]

9%

69%

HSS STM

69%

Yes Unsure No

6 PEER REVIEW A GLOBAL VIEW

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 in the peer review of a paper

Supervisor involved me

[n

in

=

the

411]

peer review of a paper

[n = 411]

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Publisher guidelines and advice [n = 817]

Journal Editor guidelines and advice [n = 818]

Publisher guidelines and advice [n = 419]

23%

21%

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

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

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

Publisher guidelines and advice [n = 419]

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

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

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]

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

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

paper tomorrow - how confident

would you feel about undertaking the

review? [n = 607]

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

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

10 - very confident 9 8

0%

7 6

20%

5 4

40%

3 2

60%

1 - not at

80%

all confident

100%

If you were asked to peer review a

paper tomorrow - how confident

would you feel about undertaking the

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

review? [n = 422]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

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

paper tomorrow - how confident

would you feel about undertaking the

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

Journal Editor guidelines and advice [n = 417]

27%

64%

10%

Journal Editor guidelines and advice [n = 417]

27%

64%

10%

Attended a workshop or other formal training

22%

63%

15%

Attended a workshop

[n =

or

413]

other formal training

22%

63%

15%

[n = 413]

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

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

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 29

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 29

8 PEER REVIEW A GLOBAL VIEW

TRAINING 9

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


5R

Q37

Motivations for Peer Review

5 r Motivations for Peer Review

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

that each of the following is a motivation for submitting your

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

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Reviewers

only

Responses

from reviewers

Making a contribution to scholarly communication in

my field [n = 2469]

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

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

43%

21%

18%

9%

HSS

Sharing my research with others in my field and

beyond [n = 2473]

41%

20%

19%

9%

Enhancing my reputation or furthering my career

[n = 2468]

39%

20%

18%

10%

Demonstrating that I have conducted an original

piece of research [n = 2469]

32%

20%

20%

10%

6% 5%

Motivations,

training and support

in peer review

Receiving feedback from my peers [n = 2468]

Institutional requirement to fulfil a quota of peer

reviewed papers [n = 2468]

22%

27%

18%

13%

19%

14%

14% 9%

11% 6% 7%

8%

9%

Dependence of future funding upon the number of

peer reviewed papers published [n = 2454]

22%

13%

14%

11%

6%

9%

10%

Pressure to publish peer reviewed papers from

government or funding bodies [n = 2467]

15%

8%

12%

9%

8%

10% 7% 8%

18%

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

10 PEER REVIEW A GLOBAL VIEW

MOTIVATIONS FOR PEER REVIEW 11


Motivations for Peer Review

5 r

Motivations for Peer Review

5R

Q37

Q37

STM

5 r Motivations for Peer Review

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.

As an author: 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:

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Reviewers

only

5R

Motivations for Peer Review

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:

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

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

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

HSS

Sharing my research with others in my field and

beyond [n = 1499]

36%

23%

18%

10%

Playing your part as a member of the academic

community [n = 2473]

45%

20%

19%

10%

Making a contribution to scholarly communication in

my field [n = 1493]

35%

20%

20%

11%

Reciprocating the benefit gained when others review

your papers [n = 2459]

31%

19%

21%

12%

5% 6%

Demonstrating that I have conducted an original

piece of research [n = 1496]

30%

21%

19%

11%

6%

7%

Enjoy being able to help improve the paper

[n = 2470]

24%

18%

23%

16%

8%

6%

Enhancing my reputation or furthering my career

[n = 1502]

29%

18%

20%

12%

7%

8%

Enjoy seeing new work ahead of publication

[n = 2469]

20%

13%

20%

16%

11%

9%

Receiving feedback from my peers [n = 1496]

22%

18%

19%

13%

9%

10%

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

14%

13%

15%

13%

12%

11%

7%

STM

Dependence of future funding upon the number of

peer reviewed papers published [n = 1497]

Institutional requirement to fulfil a quota of peer

reviewed papers [n = 1500]

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%

Pressure to publish peer reviewed papers from

government or funding bodies [n = 1500]

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%

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

12 PEER REVIEW A GLOBAL VIEW

MOTIVATIONS FOR PEER REVIEW 13


5 r Motivations for Peer Review

5R

Motivations for Peer Review

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:

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

5 r

Motivations for Peer Review

5R

Motivations for Peer Review

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

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Reviewers

only

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

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

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%

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

14

PEER REVIEW A GLOBAL VIEW

MOTIVATIONS FOR PEER REVIEW 15


STM

5 r Motivations for Peer Review

5R

Motivations for Peer Review

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:

Free access to the journal [n = 1498]

Waiver of colour, open access or other publishing

charges [n = 1475]

Appearing in a published list of reviewers [n = 1499]

A certificate or record of your participation in the

peer review process [n = 1493]

Payment by the journal [n = 1493]

Entry into a competition to win a prize for the most

effective and timely review [n = 1494]

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

alongside the paper [n = 1497]

Your reviewer's report being published with your

name alongside the paper [n = 1485]

1 – much less likely to 10 – much more likely

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

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%

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

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%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

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

Journal Editor guidelines and advice

49%

41% 11%

[n = 2,468]

Journal Editor guidelines and advice

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%

Supervisor involved me in the peer review of a paper

28%

28%

44%

[n = 2,443]

Supervisor involved me in the peer review of a paper

28%

28%

44%

[n = 2,443]

Attended a workshop or other formal training

9%

51%

40%

[n = 2,458]

Attended a workshop or other formal training

9%

51%

40%

[n = 2,458]

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

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

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

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

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

Journal Editor guidelines and advice

45%

44% 11%

[n = 1,503]

Journal Editor guidelines and advice

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?

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Publisher guidelines and advice [n = 1,505]

Supervisor involved me in the peer review of a paper

[n = 1,487]

37%

30%

33%

Supervisor involved me in the peer review of a paper

[n = 1,487]

37%

30%

33%

Attended a workshop or other formal training

[n = 1,494]

12%

55%

34%

Attended a workshop or other formal training

[n = 1,494]

12%

55%

34%

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

41%

41%

43%

43%

21%

16%

16%

HSS STM

16

PEER REVIEW A GLOBAL VIEW

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

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]

1 – not at all confident to 10 – very confident

46%

46%

HSS

STM

6R

Reviewers

Training

only

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

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]

1 – not at all confident to 10 – very confident

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

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

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%

about undertaking the review?

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

paper - how confident do you feel

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]

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

When you are asked to peer review a

paper - how confident do you feel

about undertaking the review?

[n = 1,501]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

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

17% 20% 27% 19% 7%

I

was

was

approached

approached

by

by

the

the

Editor/Editorial

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

Editor/Editorial

Editor/Editorial

Board

Board

member,

member,

who

who I

know

know

My

My

supervisor

supervisor

I

added

added

my

my

name

name

and

and

invited/recommended

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

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

I

was

was

approached

approached

by

by My

My

supervisor

supervisor

I was

was

approached

approached

by

by

the

the

Editor/Editorial

Editor/Editorial

invited/recommended

invited/recommended

the

the

Editor/Editorial

Editor/Editorial

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

PEER REVIEW A GLOBAL VIEW

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

Motivations for Peer Review

As an author: 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.

As an author: 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:

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

Editors

only

Responses

from editors

Making a contribution to scholarly communication in

my field [n = 829]

Sharing my research with others in my field and

beyond [n = 831]

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

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

48%

45%

20%

22%

16%

15%

8%

7%

HSS

Enhancing my reputation or furthering my career

[n = 833]

39%

18%

18%

11%

Demonstrating that I have conducted an original

piece of research [n = 828]

33%

18%

17%

10%

6%

Motivations,

training and support

in peer review

Receiving feedback from my peers [n = 828]

Institutional requirement to fulfil a quota of peer

reviewed papers [n = 829]

24%

28%

15%

11%

18%

16%

15% 9%

9% 7% 6%

8%

10%

Dependence of future funding upon the number of

peer reviewed papers published [n = 825]

21%

14%

16%

9%

8%

8%

9%

Pressure to publish peer reviewed papers from

government or funding bodies [n = 829]

18%

8%

14%

10%

8%

10% 6% 8%

15%

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

20 PEER REVIEW A GLOBAL VIEW

MOTIVATIONS FOR PEER REVIEW 21


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

Q56

Q56

STM

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

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

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

submitting your research to a peer reviewed journal?

Editors

only

5E

Q57

HSS

5 e Motivations for Peer Review

Q57

Motivations for Peer Review

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

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

Sharing my research with others in my field and

beyond [n = 426]

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

42%

28%

12%

8%

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

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

Appearing in a published list of reviewers [n = 768]

55%

7% 24% 14%

HSS

Making a contribution to scholarly communication in

my field [n = 424]

42%

26%

11%

10%

Free access to the journal [n = 761]

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%

Demonstrating that I have conducted an original

piece of research [n = 426]

32%

22%

16%

11%

7%

Waiver of colour, open access or other publishing

charges [n = 730]

Payment for time spent [n = 763]

12%

41%

40%

54%

44%

Receiving feedback from my peers [n = 427]

23%

22%

16%

15%

7%

7%

Entry into a competition to win a prize for the most

effective and timely review [n = 759]

32%

63%

Dependence of future funding upon the number of

peer reviewed papers published [n = 426]

25%

16%

19%

10%

8%

6%

7%

Reviewer's name as reviewer disclosed to the

author [n = 758]

6%

17%

74%

STM

Institutional requirement to fulfil a quota of peer

reviewed papers [n = 427]

Pressure to publish peer reviewed papers from

government or funding bodies [n = 425]

21%

22%

13%

10%

16%

15%

10%

12%

8%

7%

9%

9%

11% 5% 5% 10%

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

Reviewer's name being published alongside the

paper as one of the reviewers [n = 758]

The reviewer's report being published anonymously

alongside the paper [n = 759]

The review's report being published with your name

alongside the paper [n = 754]

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

14%

10%

18%

77%

83%

87%

22

PEER REVIEW A GLOBAL VIEW

MOTIVATIONS FOR PEER REVIEW / TRAINING 23


STM

5 e Motivations for Peer Review

5E

Motivations for Peer Review

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

Free access to the journal [n = 392]

Appearing in a published list of reviewers [n = 402]

Waiver of colour, open access or other publishing

charges [n = 388]

A certificate or record of participation in the peer

review process [n = 399]

Payment for time spent [n = 398]

Entry into a competition to win a prize for the most

effective and timely review [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

alongside the paper [n = 397]

The review's report being published with your name

alongside the paper [n = 398]

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

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

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Your own guidelines and advice

[n = 765]

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

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

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%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

17%

36%

32%

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

58%

46%

24%

24%

22%

22%

HSS STM

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

46%

44%

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

24

PEER REVIEW A GLOBAL VIEW

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

2015 Taylor & Francis Peer Review Survey – Top Level Results – INTERNAL REPORT C Will Frass 75

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

6 e Locating reviewers

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

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

Humanities and Social Science Researchers

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 -

how easy is it to find academics

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

willing to peer review the paper?

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, Technical and Medical Researchers

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 -

how easy is it to find academics

willing to peer review the paper?

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

When you receive [n = 405] a manuscript -

how easy is it to find academics

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

willing to peer review the paper?

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

26 PEER REVIEW A GLOBAL VIEW

LOCATING REVIEWERS 27


6 e Locating reviewers

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

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers

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

Motivations, training and support in peer review

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.

More magazines by this user