Scientific peer review provides .5 billion dollar public subsidy to commercial publishers
Posted Jun 14 2010 9:47am
In 2009, of an international 'peer review' survey of authors and reviewers was published (see ). As many of you know, is central to biomedical publishing and scientific enquiry -- knowledge creation that is essential in evidence-based practice. According to the report, more than 1.3 million scientific articles are published annually and with the explosion of information the current peer review system faces serious challenges: will there be sufficient numbers of experts to do the peer review? how will the system defend itself against any number of conflicts of interest and monetary pressures?
So why do scientists engage in peer review?
According to the study, 90% of respondents say it's because they want to be active in the scientific community; 16% say that their involvement increases their own chances of having future papers accepted
Peer review needs to be improved but a whole new system is not needed:
84% say that scientific communication relies on peer review; a third (32%) think it is the best system possible; 20% say peer review is unsustainable due to insufficient numbers of reviewers.
91% say their last paper was improved through peer review; discussion was the biggest area of improvement
73% say technology makes it easier to peer review; 86% enjoy reviewing, 56% say there is a lack of guidance on how to review; 68% say formal training would help; on average, reviewers reject two papers a year
15% say that 'formal' peer review could be replaced by metrics, hits and user statistics
61% say that they turn down invitations to review articles citing lack of expertise as the main reason - journals obviously have a hard time identifying suitable reviewers
Developing higher standards
79% say that peer review should identify good papers, determine originality and improve them; 43% feel peer review is too slow, 65% say that they had received a decision on their most recent paper within 3 months
Reviewers expect anonymity: 58% are unlikely to review if their names are published. 76% favour double blinding of editors and peer reviewers
peer review is well understood by the scientific community but just 30% believe the public understands the process
81% say peer review should ensure previous research is retrieved and cited; there are major concerns in the research community about cumulating the evidence
over half feel that payment would make them more apt to review a manuscript; 41% want payment but this drops to 2.5% if the author had to cover costs
: "Most researchers give up time to review papers for no charge. The whole scholarly communication system is dependent on this. Why do they do it? This study helps us to answer the question. And I take heart in the finding that 85% of the around 4000 respondents quite simply do it because they enjoy being able to improve papers. "
: "These latest insights from researchers show why the peer review process continues to be so important - and enjoyable!"
: "I'm impressed by the vast amount of responses to the study - it tells us just how engaged the scientific community is with peer review. Not only do they greatly value it, but they have a strong desire to enhance it. Elsevier in partnership with editors, plays an active role in developing peer review, and we are moving forward with initiatives such as Crosscheck, a pan-publisher plagiarism detection tool. We are keen to look at other ways to respond to the views raised in this survey."
The Times Online
Times Higher Education
BBC World Service (about 20 minutes into clip)
Information World Review
Physics World blog
The Peer Review Survey was an electronic survey conducted between 28th July 2009 and 11th August 2009; 40,000 researchers were randomly selected from the ISI author database, which contains published researchers from over 10,000 journals. Altogether 4,037 researchers completed the survey.
The full findings and report are due to be published in November 2009.
Bjork et al (2008) 'Global annual volume of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via different Open Access options' Proceedings ELPUB2008 Conference on Electronic Publishing - Toronto, Canada - June 2008
Publishing Research Consortium (2007) '
Chalmers & Glasziou (2009) 'Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence' The Lancet; 374: 86-89.