Data file

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