| Abstract: |
Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines.
This study presents the results of a survey of 322 journal editors of
high-impact journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology.
Editors were asked for details about peer review policies and practices at
their journals, as well as their views on five publication ethics issues. Key
findings included: almost half of surveyed journals checked all manuscripts
for plagiarism, adoption of “open” policies was uncommon and a fifth of
editors reported that disagreement with a reviewer’s recommendation would be
grounds for editing a report (with or without the reviewer’s permission). The
majority of editors expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting
access to raw data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors
publishing in their journals and replication studies. These results highlight
differences in peer review policies across journals and 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 of peer review in scholarly
publishing, and transparency in editorial and publishing policy. |