Journal's Peer Review Process Research Articles

Editorial: Investing in the future: Writing and peer-reviewing for TAPPI Journal, TAPPI Journal July 2024

Those who actively participate in TAPPI realize how much there is to gain from the networking, educational resources, career development, and other opportunities that come with this involvement. One important opportunity is the ability to share your work and expertise with others in your field, and an excellent way to do this is by taking part in the TAPPI Journal peer-review process, either as an author or a reviewer or both.

How the readability of manuscript before journal submission advantages peer review process: Evidence from biomedical scientific publications

The practice of uploading preprints of scientific manuscripts prior to journal submission has become increasingly popular. As such, it is essential to understand the impact of the preprint version of a manuscript on the peer review process to facilitate the development of open peer review practices. In the current research, we analyze a dataset comprising 1,078 biomedical papers published in Nature Communications and eLife in 2019, along with their manuscript information posted on preprint servers and their peer review histories. Our investigation focuses on the relationship between the readability of manuscript before journal submission, as represented by preprints, and the sentimental features expressed by reviewers. Based on empirical analysis utilizing a linear regression model, it has been found that reviewers are inclined to express positive sentiments towards preprints characterized by technical language, as indicated by low value on the readability indices. Additional subgroup analysis suggests that this positive effect is more pronounced in papers with lower social and scientific impact, as indicated by online attention scores and scholarly views after publication, respectively. Overall, results of our analysis reveals that the utilization of technical language characterized by lower readability level in academic papers does not seem to hinder the peer review process in biomedical science, which has significant implications for the open peer review practice.

What roles might automation play in the future of public administration journal peer review processes?

AbstractPublishing in journals is crucial in the creation of knowledge within the public administration field and the career advancements of individuals. Each year, more articles enter journal publishing systems, and it is becoming more difficult and time consuming for editors to secure reviewers. A range of technological applications have been developed that apply automation techniques to various aspects of the peer review process and these are explored in this paper. We find some potentially promising applications in terms of assessing aspects of quality and in identifying potential reviewers. The replacement of humans in review processes is less clear cut and there are dangers in exacerbating inequities within the field. The value of peer review is particularly important for early career researchers and building a community of scholarship in the public administration field. It is crucial we recognise this and do not lose positives of peer review processes to address some of the issues currently experienced.Points for practitioners Academic journals help create knowledge within the field of public administration and play a role in career advancement of individual academics. Yet, there are a number of well‐established challenges with peer review processes. Recent advancements in technologies such as Artificial Intelligence offer the potential to automate some processes associated with peer review. Several automation processes are already available and in use around some areas of peer review processes and these are explored in this paper. But it is unlikely that automation will replace humans in peer review processes, and it is important that the public administration community revisits the importance of these processes and considers how these are valued and rewarded.

Gender and racial differences in first and senior authorship of high-impact critical care randomized controlled trial studies from 2000 to 2022

BackgroundFemales and ethnic minorities are underrepresented in the first and senior authorships positions of academic publications. This stems from various structural and systemic inequalities and discrimination in the journal peer-review process, as well as educational, institutional, and organizational cultures.MethodsA retrospective bibliometric study design was used to investigate the representation of gender and racial/ethnic groups in the authorship of critical care randomized controlled trials in 12 high-impact journals from 2000 to 2022.ResultsIn the 1398 randomized controlled trials included in this study, only 24.61% of the first authors and 16.6% of the senior authors were female. Although female authorship increased during the study period, authorship was significantly higher for males throughout (Chi-square for trend, p < 0.0001). The educational attainment [χ2(4) = 99.2, p < 0.0001] and the country of the author's affiliated institution [χ2(42) = 70.3, p = 0.0029] were significantly associated with gender. Male authorship was significantly more prevalent in 10 out of 12 journals analyzed in this study [χ2(11) = 110.1, p < 0.0001]. The most common race/ethnic group in our study population was White (85.1% women, 85.4% males), followed by Asians (14.3% females, 14.3% males). Although there was a significant increase in the number of non-White authors between 2000 and 2022 [χ2(22) = 77.3, p < 0.0001], the trend was driven by an increase in non-White male and not non-White female authors. Race/ethnicity was significantly associated with the country of the author’s affiliated institution [χ2(41) = 1107, p < 0.0001] but not with gender or educational attainment.ConclusionsPersistent gender and racial disparities in high-impact medical and critical care journals underscore the need to revise policies and strategies to encourage greater diversity in critical care research.

Launch of an Editorial Scholars Program for Neuro-Oncology.

The success of Neuro-Oncology is contingent on many elements. The quality and impact of the science and research conducted, especially if this results in a major paradigm shift in the field, is well accepted as the main driving factor. The integrity and efficiency of the review process to ensure that the conduct of the work was rigorous and reproducible, and that the conclusions were clear and appropriate, is another major factor. Peer reviewers are critical to the contribution of high-quality scientific publications, yet there are few programs that seek to formalize the training of the peer-review process. To address this training gap, the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and Oxford University Press are pleased to announce the inaugural Editorial Scholars Program. This new opportunity is offered to early-career members to enhance their skills as reviewers of manuscripts and expand the pool of qualified peer reviewers for Neuro-Oncology. The program will also offer an introduction to the journal’s production and post-publication activities. The broader goal of the program is to increase exposure to, involvement in, and commitment to the journal peer-review process, ethical considerations, editing, and publishing of medical research manuscripts among early-stage researchers.

Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials

BackgroundIn the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential to support clinical decision-making. We aimed (1) to assess and compare the reporting characteristics of RCTs between preprints and peer-reviewed publications and (2) to assess whether reporting improves after the peer review process for all preprints subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and L·OVE COVID-19 platform to identify all reports of RCTs assessing pharmacological treatments of COVID-19, up to May 2021. We extracted indicators of transparency (e.g., trial registration, data sharing intentions) and assessed the completeness of reporting (i.e., some important CONSORT items, conflict of interest, ethical approval) using a standardized data extraction form. We also identified paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publications.ResultsWe identified 251 trial reports: 121 (48%) were first published in peer-reviewed journals, and 130 (52%) were first published as preprints. Transparency was poor. About half of trials were prospectively registered (n = 140, 56%); 38% (n = 95) made their full protocols available, and 29% (n = 72) provided access to their statistical analysis plan report. A data sharing statement was reported in 68% (n = 170) of the reports of which 91% stated their willingness to share. Completeness of reporting was low: only 32% (n = 81) of trials completely defined the pre-specified primary outcome measures; 57% (n = 143) reported the process of allocation concealment. Overall, 51% (n = 127) adequately reported the results for the primary outcomes while only 14% (n = 36) of trials adequately described harms. Primary outcome(s) reported in trial registries and published reports were inconsistent in 49% (n = 104) of trials; of them, only 15% (n = 16) disclosed outcome switching in the report. There were no major differences between preprints and peer-reviewed publications. Of the 130 RCTs published as preprints, 78 were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. There was no major improvement after the journal peer review process for most items.ConclusionsTransparency, completeness, and consistency of reporting of COVID-19 clinical trials were insufficient both in preprints and peer-reviewed publications. A comparison of paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publication did not indicate major improvement.

Exploring racial equity in the science education journal review process

AbstractAcross a broad range of disciplines, research has found that inequity is systemic in the journal review process. Collectively, however, this study does not specifically examine racial inequity. Moreover, literature on the peer review process in science education, in particular, does not foreground equity as a subject of study. The present study aims to address this void by examining racial equity in the peer review process with a specific focus on journals in science education. Data are collected from lead editors of major science education journals through the form of interviews, focus groups, and critical arts‐based methods. The two research questions driving data collection are (a) In what ways does the science education journal peer review process promote racial equity? and (b) How are science education journal editors’ perceptions of racial inequity reflected in the peer review process? McNair and colleagues’ racial equity framework informs the explorations of journal review in science education from the lead editors’ perspectives. From our findings, we offer four suggestions for moving toward greater racial equity in the science education peer review process.

Surgical endoscopy education research: how are we doing?

Surgical endoscopy (SE), the official journal of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, is an important source of new evidence pertaining to surgical education in the field. However, qualitative deficiencies in medical education research have prompted medical education leaders to advocate for increased methodological rigor. The purpose of this study is to review the quality of education-focused research published through SE. A PubMed search examining all SE articles categorized as education-related research from 2010 to 2019 was conducted; studies not meeting inclusion criteria were excluded. Remaining publications were independently reviewed, classified, and scored by 7 raters using the medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI). Intraclass correlation was calculated and data were examined with descriptive statistics. A total of 227 studies met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in number of publications by year (average 25.88 [SD 5.6]); 60% were conducted outside of the United States, and 47% (n = 106) were funded. The average MERSQI was 12.5 (SD 2). Most studies used two-group non-random (42%, n = 96) or post/cross-sectional designs (29%, n = 65). Thirty-six (16%) were randomized controlled trials. Multi-institutional studies comprised 24% (n = 54). Of the manuscripts, 96% (n = 217) reported at least one measure of validity evidence and 28% (n = 67) described three levels of validity evidence. Studies primarily reported changes in skills or knowledge (45%, n = 103) or satisfaction or general facts (44%, n = 99), while patient-related outcomes encompassed 3% (n = 6) of studies. ICC between raters was 0.93 (CI 0.90-0.93, p < 0.001). Based on publications to date, this journal's peer review process appears to facilitate the dissemination of education-related studies of moderate to good quality. However, there were uncovered deficits, ranging from validity evidence to study designs and level of outcomes. This journal's breadth of viewership offers a potential venue to advance education-related research.

GIScience research at the 2021 Esri User Conference

GIScience research at the 2021 Esri User Conference

Developing doctoral students' / researchers’ understanding of the journal peer-review process

A growing body of knowledge has confirmed that the journal peer-review process is an integral part of the scientific publication process and provides demonstrable benefits to journal editors and authors. This study aims to develop doctoral students' understanding of the journal peer-review process and highlight the most common errors and pitfalls reviewers identify in novice authors’ manuscripts, which could lead to rejection. A qualitative content analysis research method was used to analyse the primary data as experience collected from senior researchers, editors and associate editors. Among the major contributions of this study is an interactive diagram that provides an overview of the journal peer-review process and identifies the common pitfalls in manuscripts, as well as a comprehensive manuscript submission checklist.

Where next for research on teaching assistants: the case for an international response

ABSTRACT In this paper, the guest editors consider the direction of research on teaching assistants (TAs), and how academics can elevate the field within the spheres of education and the social sciences. We begin by unpicking, and endorsing, Giangreco’s idea of applying the ‘Maslow’s Hammer test’ (expressed in this special issue) to manuscripts about studies of TAs and inclusion to journal editorship and peer review processes. The purpose of the test is to address the disproportionate attention paid by researchers to a set of narrow and recurring interests, and to open up new lines of inquiry and discussions about the innovative methodological approaches required to operationalise them. Secondly, we describe a persistent and urgent research gap: the shortage of international data on TAs. Given the pre-eminence of TA deployment as a means to facilitate access to and participation in mainstream education for pupils with special educational needs, we argue that the continued lack of large-scale data on TAs’ characteristics, experiences, practices and impact poses a risk to advancing the global inclusion agenda. Finally, we make a call for expressions of interest in establishing an international research network to help expand, empower and raise the esteem the field of scholarship on TAs.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

As we closed out a memorable 2020 and look to the New Year, we might say that not much good has come out of this year. But as a Monty Python fan, I love the ditty from The Life of Brian movie, "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life." While the pandemic has taken much, it has also provided opportunities to explore new ways of learning, working, and being in community. For me, the pandemic has highlighted a fact I think we have all long suspected: the current journal peer review process is broken-it's unsustainable.

COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on peer review speed of anesthesiology journals: An observational study.

Background and Aims:Publication of a scientific article in a reputed journal is an uphill task that demands a significant amount of time and effort from the author and editorial team. It is a matter of great enthusiasm for all prospective researchers to know whether this daily evolving publication load of articles during this pandemic had changed the journal's inherent peer review or publication process. We aimed to compare the peer review speed of anesthesiology journal articles published during pandemic (2020) to the previous year and to analyze various factors affecting peer review speed.Material and Methods:Overall, 16 anesthesiology journals indexed in MEDLINE database were retrospectively analyzed. A set of 24 articles published in 2019 of the included journals were selected from each journal for control and a set of 12 articles published between January to September 2020 was selected for comparison. Time taken for acceptance and publication from the time of submission was noted. Peer review timing was calculated and its relationship with h-index, continent of journal origin and article processing charges were evaluated.Results:The median peer review time in 2019 and 2020 were 116 (108-125) days and 79 (65-105.5) days, respectively. There was a 31.8% decrease (P = 0.0021) in peer review time of all articles in 2020 compared to 2019. The median peer review timings of COVID-19 articles were 35 (22-42.5) days. A 55.6% decrease was noted in peer review time of COVID-19 articles compared to non-COVID-19 articles in 2020. There was a significant correlation between peer review time and h-index (r = 0.558, P = 0.024). There was no significant difference in peer review timing of journals with or without article processing charge (P = 0.75) and between journals from different continents (P = 0.56).Conclusion:Anesthesiology journals managed to curtail their turnaround time for peer review during the pandemic compared to previous year. Journal with higher h-index had longer peer review time. The option for articles processing charge and continent of publishing journal had no impact on peer review speed.

The influence of the global COVID‐19 pandemic on manuscript submissions and editor and reviewer performance at six ecology journals

Abstract Government policies attempting to slow the spread of COVID‐19 have reduced access to research laboratories and shifted many scholars to working from home. These disruptions will likely influence submissions to scholarly journals, and affect the time available for editors and reviewers to participate in peer review. In this editorial we examine how journal submissions, and editorial and peer review processes, have been influenced by the pandemic at six journals published by the British Ecological Society (BES). We find no evidence of a change in the geographic pattern of submissions from across the globe. We also find no evidence that submission of manuscripts by women has been more affected by pandemic disruptions than have submissions by men—the proportion of papers authored by women during the COVID period of 2020 has not changed relative to the same period in 2019. Editors handled papers just as quickly, and reviewers have agreed to review just as often, during the pandemic compared to pre‐pandemic. The one notable change in peer review during the pandemic is that reviewers replied more quickly to emails inviting them to review (albeit only 4% sooner), and those who agreed to review returned their reviews more quickly (17% sooner), during the pandemic. We thus find no evidence at these six ecology journals that submissions and peer review processes have been negatively impacted by the pandemic. Also, contrary to analyses in other disciplines, we do not find evidence that there have been disproportionate impacts of the pandemic on female authors and reviewers.

Deciding to post a manuscript preprint

Deciding to post a manuscript preprint

Streamlined Conversion of Omics Metadata into Manuscript Facilitates Publishing and Reuse of Omics Data

Data papers have started to gain popularity as a publishing format that allows easy and quick publishing of research data (Chavan and Penev 2011, Penev et al. 2017). They describe single or multiple datasets and the methodologies required for their generation. Similar to traditional research articles, data papers and the underlying datasets are peer-reviewed. In this poster, we demonstrate how data papers can be used to incentivise researchers producing omics datasets to increase the quality of the metadata descriptors and the data itself through the journal authoring, peer review and publication process, thus improving data visibility, discoverability, sharing and reuse. We illustrate a highly automated workflow for the creation of omics data paper manuscripts, which started with the development of a template for this specific article type in the Biodiversity Data Journal (BDJ), published by Pensoft (Dimitrova et al. 2020). The workflow streamlines automatic conversion and import of metadata from the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) into an omics data paper manuscript created in the ARPHA Writing Tool (AWT), following a three step procedure: mapping of the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) metadata to the manuscript sections, extraction of the relevant metadata through the ENA project or study ID, and transforming the metadata into HTML or XML files. The XML file follows the Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) standard and can be used by anyone as a draft to further develop a data paper manuscript and submit it to any journal. mapping of the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) metadata to the manuscript sections, extraction of the relevant metadata through the ENA project or study ID, and transforming the metadata into HTML or XML files. The XML file follows the Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) standard and can be used by anyone as a draft to further develop a data paper manuscript and submit it to any journal. Records in ENA sometimes have linked data in the ArrayExpress and BioSamples databases, which describe sequencing experiments and samples following the community-accepted metadata standards MINSEQE and MIxS. The workflow also retrieves such records and inserts them both into the omics data paper narrative and as supplementary data files. The workflow has been integrated with Pensoft's ARPHA platform but the conversion code is openly accessible on GitHub under the Apache 2.0 license and can be run as a R Shiny app. By openly providing access to the code and its implementation in a web application, we enable the full reproducibility of the streamlined import of ENA metadata into an omics data paper manuscript. The plan is to further develop the workflow to include the import of various other types of omics data and omics data repositories in addition to the currently supported ENA genomic data. The workflow reaffirms the important role of high-quality metadata for creating extended dataset descriptions, recognised by Chavan and Penev 2011. Conversion of metadata into a manuscript helped us discover many datasets with insufficient or inaccurate metadata. Hence, we hope that our workflow promotes not only omics data paper publishing but also better metadata authoring and curation.

Special Issue on Wearable Robotics and Assistive Technology

This special issue highlights some of the best work presented at the 4th International Symposium on Wearable Robotics (WeRob2018), held October 16–20, 2018, in Pisa, Italy. The papers focus on new technologies in the areas of neural interfaces, soft wearable robots, sensor and actuator technologies, and robotic exoskeletons. Based on the quality and significance of presentations at the conference, some of the presenters were invited to submit substantially expanded versions of their papers to IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering (TNSRE). The papers went through the normal journal peer-review process at that point. Eventually, six papers were ultimately selected for this special issue.

Abuse of peer review process by sham authors

This is a short letter on how the peer review process of many journals is being abused by some sham authors. While it would be difficult for the journals to identify and eliminate manuscripts that are not submitted with a sincere intention to publish, the universities and learning institutions should develop code of ethics to prevent their staff from abusing the journal review process. Imposing submission fee would also act as a deterrent against unscrupulous submissions.

“I don't see gender”: Conceptualizing a gendered system of academic publishing

Academic experts share their ideas, as well as contribute to advancing health science by participating in publishing as an author, reviewer and editor. The academy shapes and is shaped by knowledge produced within it. As such, the production of scientific knowledge can be described as part of a socially constructed system. Like all socially constructed systems, scientific knowledge production is influenced by gender. This study investigated one layer of this system through an analysis of journal editors' understanding of if and how gender influences editorial practices in peer reviewed health science journals. The study involved two stages: 1) exploratory in-depth qualitative interviews with editors at health science journals; and 2) a nominal group technique (NGT) with experts working on gender in research, academia and the journal peer review process. Our findings indicate that some editors had not considered the impact of gender on their editorial work. Many described how they actively strive to be ‘gender blind,’ as this was seen as a means to be objective. This view fails to recognize how broader social structures operate to produce systemic inequities. None of the editors or publishers in this study were collecting gender or other social indicators as part of the article submission process. These findings suggest that there is room for editors and publishers to play a more active role in addressing structural inequities in academic publishing to ensure a diversity of knowledge and ideas are reflected.

Online Literacy Skills Applied to the Sources You Cite

Online Literacy Skills Applied to the Sources You Cite