Naslov
What do authors and editors think about peer-review? A cross-sectional study of 12 journals across four disciplines.

Autori
Pranić, S ; Marušić, S ; Malički, M ; Mehmani, B ; Marušić, A

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Sažeci sa skupova, pp prezentacija, znanstveni

Skup
New Frontiers of Peer Review (PEERE) - European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST)

Mjesto i datum
Växjö, Švedska, 30.08.2016. - 01.09.2016

Vrsta sudjelovanja
Predavanje

Vrsta recenzije
Nije recenziran

Ključne riječi
Manuscript peer review, review quality instrument, perception of peer review

Sažetak
Objective: To assess satisfaction of corresponding authors and opinions of handling editors with reviewer-generated reports and reviewer recommendations in a pilot study of 12 Elsevier journals across four disciplines. Design: In a cross-sectional study, we assessed perceptions of authors and manuscript-handling editors regarding manuscript reviews, quality of review reports, and reviewer recommendations from an Elsevier pilot study conducted in May-December 2014. Using convenience sampling of five manuscripts/week by journal administrators, we assessed 1333 reviews and reviewer-recommendations, 1068 editor, and 336 author perceptions on manuscript reviews from different subject areas (Table 1). 324 (41%) manuscripts had a single reviewer, 398 (50%) had two, and 67 (9%) had 3 or more reviewers. Editorial decisions were not available for the current study. Two independent raters used version 3.2 of Review Quality Instrument (RQI) to assess review quality. With the manuscript as the unit of analysis, we used Spearman’s rho to determine associations among: 1) authors' perception of the reviews ; 2) editors' opinions regarding review timeliness ; 3) editors' opinion on review's impact on decision ; 4) review quality, measured by RQI ; and 5) reviewers’ recommendation (accepted, revise, rejected). Results: Authors were highly satisfied with received reviews and editors with review timeliness and influence on their decision (Table 1). We found statistically significant correlations between author satisfaction and review decision (rho=0.432, 95% CI 0.312-0.538, P<0.0001). No association was found between RQI scores and reviewer decisions regardless of number of reviews per manuscript. Inter-rater agreement between reviewers was low (κ=0.233 95% CI 0.097-0.369). We found higher quality reviews in agriculture compared to other disciplines (median=22, IQR 20-26, 95% CI 21-24) vs. median=18, IQR 15-21, 95% CI 17-18). Conclusions: Authors' satisfaction was positively correlated to reviewer recommendation, but not to review quality, indicating that opinion and objective assessment differs. Use of the same instrument to assess the quality of reviews in one field may be unsuitable for another. Objective assessment of review quality and of author and editor perception of the quality of reviews may play a key role in ensuring that the peer review process provides constructive help for both authors and editors in various scientific disciplines.

Izvorni jezik
Engleski

Znanstvena područja
Temeljne medicinske znanosti

POVEZANOST RADA