NEWS RELEASE
[IMAGE]
Bob Campbell, Publishing Research Consortium
Tel: +44 (0)1865 476118
Robert.Campbell_at_oxon.blackwellpublishing.com
Mark Ware
Tel: +44 117 959 3726
mark_at_markwareconsulting.com
Researchers want to improve, not change, Peer Review
London, UK. January 25, 2008
Most researchers are not in favour of changing the current system of
peer review for journal articles; they believe that it helps to
improve scientific communications and increases the overall quality
of published papers. Alternatives such as 'open peer review' (where
papers are available for public comment prior to publication') were
not popular in a new study of over 3,000 senior authors, reviewers,
and editors from around the world. However, some were interested in
post-publication review, where a published paper is opened up for
public comment, as a useful supplement to, but not a replacement for,
traditional peer review.
Researchers did, however, prefer double-blind review (where both
reviewers and authors are unaware of each other's identity) to the
currently prevalent single-blind system (where only the reviewer is
anonymous), seeing this as a way to improve both objectivity and
fairness. A majority of reviewers and editors also said it would be
desirable to be able to review authors' data as part of peer review.
While of the majority of respondents saw peer review as an effective
filter for research, some did not think it was effective at detecting
plagiarism, fraud or misconduct.
The report, by Mark Ware Consulting, also underscored that the most
productive reviewers are currently overworked, which is an area that
may need further monitoring and analysis.
"Publishing peer review continues to be a hot-button topic within
most disciplines," said Bob Campbell, Chairman, Steering Group of the
Publishing Research Consortium and Senior Publisher, Wiley-Blackwell.
"This study will help publishers better understand researchers'
perceptions of peer review and underpin future discussions in the
scholarly community."
"This is the first study of this size to look at peer review from
the perspective of authors and reviewers," said Mark Ware, Director,
Mark Ware Consulting. "This survey has produced a wealth of data that
will inform the peer review debate and provide a platform for future
studies."
The full report, "Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: perspective of
the scholarly community. An international study", can be accessed on
the PRC site at MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt
from "www.publishingresearch.org.uk" claiming to be
http://www.publishingresearch.net. A summary report, "Peer Review:
Benefits, Perceptions, and Alternatives", is also available.
About the Publishing Research Consortium
The Publishing Research Consortium is a group of associations and
publishers, which supports global research into scholarly
communication in order to enable evidence-based discussion. Our
objective is to support work that is scientific and pro-scholarship.
Overall, we aim to promote an understanding of the role of publishing
and its impact on research and teaching. For more information,
visit MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
"www.publishingresearch.org.uk" claiming to be
.
http://www.publishingresearch.net
Publishing Research Consortium
Email: info_at_publishingresearch.net
Website: www.publishingresearch.net
[ Part 2, Image/PNG 6.5KB. ]
[ Unable to print this part. ]
[ Part 3, Image/GIF 5.2KB. ]
[ Unable to print this part. ]
Received on Fri Jan 25 2008 - 13:14:15 GMT