Academics’ attitudes towards peer review in scholarly journals and the effect of role and discipline

Jennifer Rowley · Laura Sbaffi

31 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Information Science

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 research contributes to the knowledge on academics’ attitudes towards peer review, through an international and inter-disciplinary survey of academics, which profiles academics’ views on the value of peer review, its benefits and the prevalence of unethical practices. Generally, academics regarded peer review as beneficial to improving their article and felt that peer review contributed significantly to the effectiveness of scholarly communication. Academics agreed that peer review could improve the readability and quality of the published paper, as well as check for accuracy, appropriate methodology, novelty and relevance to the journal. There are significant differences in the views of respondents on the basis of role, with those involved as reviewers and editors being less positive about peer review than authors. In addition, there is evidence of some disciplinary differences in views on the benefits of peer review.

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 — 31 citations exist upstream.

References

2012Bias in peer review 2012Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers 2014Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping 2014Peer review: still king in the digital age 2017Academics' behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals 2014Trust and Authority in Scholarly Communications in the Light of the Digital Transition: setting the scene for a major study 2015Trustworthiness and authority of scholarly information in a digital age: Results of an international questionnaire 2011Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing

Cited by

2023Distrust in grant peer review—reasons and remedies 2021Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review 2019Ambiguity in identification of peer-reviewed publications in the Finnish and Flemish performance-based research funding systems 2019The art of peer reviewing: Toward an effective developmental process

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.