07.07.2016 Views

Data file

Peer review in 2015 supplement

Peer review in 2015 supplement

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

6A<br />

Training<br />

Q22<br />

As an author who has not peer reviewed a paper before: is this something you would like to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

5 a<br />

Motivations for Peer Review<br />

6A<br />

6 a<br />

Training<br />

Training<br />

Yes / No / Unsure<br />

Authors<br />

only<br />

5A<br />

Motivations for Peer Review<br />

Q21 As an author: please rate how strongly you agree or disagree<br />

that each of the following is a motivation for submitting your<br />

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

research submitting your to research a peer to a peer reviewed journal:<br />

STM<br />

1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree<br />

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers<br />

Authors<br />

only<br />

Q22<br />

Humanities and Social Science Researchers<br />

[n = 598]<br />

As an author who has not peer reviewed a paper before: is this something you would like to do in the future?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

Q22 As an author who has not peer reviewed a paper before: is<br />

this something you would like to do in the future?<br />

Yes / No / Unsure<br />

Humanities and Social Science Researchers<br />

[n = 598]<br />

22%<br />

6%<br />

STM<br />

Sharing my research with others in my field and<br />

beyond [n = 419]<br />

Demonstrating that I have conducted an original<br />

piece of research [n = 416]<br />

Making a contribution to scholarly communication in<br />

my field [n = 418]<br />

Enhancing my reputation or furthering my career<br />

[n = 418]<br />

Receiving feedback from my peers [n = 415]<br />

Dependence of future funding upon the number of<br />

peer reviewed papers published [n = 417]<br />

Institutional requirement to fulfil a quota of peer<br />

reviewed papers [n = 420]<br />

Pressure to publish peer reviewed papers from<br />

government or funding bodies [n = 419]<br />

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%<br />

32%<br />

29%<br />

29%<br />

27%<br />

20%<br />

17%<br />

15%<br />

14%<br />

12%<br />

11%<br />

8%<br />

16%<br />

13%<br />

17%<br />

19%<br />

19%<br />

19%<br />

16%<br />

14%<br />

12%<br />

20%<br />

11%<br />

18%<br />

13%<br />

11%<br />

19%<br />

21%<br />

20%<br />

12%<br />

15%<br />

10%<br />

11%<br />

15%<br />

11%<br />

12%<br />

13%<br />

12%<br />

11%<br />

11%<br />

8%<br />

7% 6%<br />

7%<br />

7% 6%<br />

6%<br />

7%<br />

7%<br />

11%<br />

10% 7%<br />

10 - strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - strongly disagree<br />

7%<br />

9%<br />

11%<br />

22%<br />

22%<br />

6%<br />

72%<br />

Yes Unsure No<br />

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers<br />

[n = 410]<br />

9%<br />

22%<br />

72%<br />

Yes Unsure No<br />

Scientific, Technical and Medical Researchers<br />

[n = 410]<br />

9%<br />

69%<br />

HSS STM<br />

69%<br />

Yes Unsure No<br />

6 PEER REVIEW A GLOBAL VIEW<br />

MOTIVATIONS FOR PEER REVIEW / TRAINING 7<br />

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

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!