Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers

Blanca Rodríguez Bravo · David Nicholas · Eti Herman · Chérifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri · Anthony Watkinson · Jie Xu +2 more

77 citations0/0 files storedLearned Publishing

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Writing and Publishing Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

This paper presents selected findings from the first year of a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. Specifically, the aims of the paper are to show: (1) how much experience and knowledge ECRs had of peer review – both as authors and as reviewers; (2) what they felt the benefits were and what suggestions they had for improvement; (3) what they thought of open peer review (OPR); and (4) who they felt should organize peer review. Data were obtained from 116 science and social science ECRs, most of whom had published and were subject to in‐depth interviews conducted face‐to‐face, via Skype, or over the telephone. An extensive literature review was also conducted to provide a context and supplementary data for the findings. The main findings were that: (1) most ECRS are well informed about peer review and generally like the experience, largely because of the learning experiences obtained; (2) they like blind double‐peer review, but would like some improvements, especially with regards to reviewer quality; (3) most are uncomfortable with the idea of OPR; and (4) most would like publishers to continue organizing peer review because of their perceived independence.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 77 citations exist upstream.

References

2003On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model 2012Bias in peer review 2003Empirical research in on-line trust: a review and critical assessment 2011Scientific peer review 2012Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers 2014Peer review: still king in the digital age 2017Early career researchers and their publishing and authorship practices 1969Public Knowledge: An Essay concerning the Social Dimension of Science

Cited by

2021Overburdening of peer reviewers: A multi‐stakeholder perspective on causes and effects 2019Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts 2019What does better peer review look like? Underlying principles and recommendations for better practice 2019Early career researchers and their authorship and peer review beliefs and practices: An international study 2020Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000Research post-publication open peer review publishing model

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.