Journal Article: “Meta-Research: Journal Policies and Editors’ Opinions on Peer Review”

The following article was recently published by eLife.

Title

Meta-Research: Journal Policies and Editors’ Opinions on Peer Review

Authors

Daniel G Hamilton
University of Melbourne

Hannah Fraser
University of Melbourne

Rink Hoekstra
University of Groningen

Fiona Fidler
University of Melbourne

Source

eLife
DOI 10.7554/eLife.62529

Abstract

Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 editors of journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. We found that 49% of the journals surveyed checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, that 61% allowed authors to recommend both for and against specific reviewers, and that less than 2% used a form of open peer review. Most journals did not have an official policy on altering reports from reviewers, but 91% of editors identified at least one situation in which it was appropriate for an editor to alter a report. Editors were also asked for their views on five issues related to publication ethics. A majority expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their own journals, and replication studies. Our results provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role and transparency of peer review in scholarly publishing.

Direct to Full Text Article

Filed under: Data Files, News, Publishing, Reports