Developing #TrustInPeerReview from author to audience, Part 4: Trust is appreciated by the reader

thank you blocksWe have now explored the roles of authors, reviewers, and publishers in the peer review process and how those three sets of actors affect an established culture of trust in peer review – the theme of this year’s Peer Review Week event. In summary, authors establish trust through integrity of research and reporting, reviewers develop that trust through unbiased and constructive feedback, and publishers demonstrate trust through effective and transparent communication of the peer review processes in place.

When in concert with one another, these three aspects lead to an ultimate reader satisfaction and appreciation of the process by which they can trust the results of the peer review process culminating in the manuscript they receive.  In today’s post, we will explore some of the factors of audience appreciation as they relate to trust in peer review. [Read more…]

Developing #TrustInPeerReview from author to audience, Part 3: Trust is demonstrated by the publisher

team reviewing togetherSo far this week, we have explored aspects of how trust in peer review is fostered and maintained in academic publishing environments. Specifically, we have examined the responsibility of authors to establish trust through honest manuscript submission and of reviewers to further develop that trust by conducting unbiased and quality reviews.

In this post, we’re going to look at how the publisher is ultimately responsible for demonstrating that established trust to and audience of readers. [Read more…]

Developing #TrustInPeerReview from author to audience, Part 2: Trust develops through the reviewers

review checklistIn this series of posts exploring how trust in peer review is established, maintained, and delivered, we began yesterday by discussing the author’s role in establishing trust through honest research and reporting practices.

Today, we will explore the responsibilities of the reviewers to further develop that trust through unbiased and quality review practices that lead to an ultimate goal of publishing quality work that is accepted and trusted by the readers. [Read more…]

Developing #TrustInPeerReview from author to audience, Part 1: Trust starts with the author

A research notebook with glasses and laptop on a deskAs noted yesterday, this week marks the sixth annual Peer Review Week event with a focus this year on “shining a light on how the peer review process works and why it helps build trust in research” through its theme, Trust in Peer Review.

In keeping with this theme, while focusing on the role that authors have in the establishment of trust in the peer review process, we will spend the next few days exploring how trust in peer review is established, maintained, and delivered. As the original creator of the work, trust starts with the author. [Read more…]

It’s Peer Review Week 2020: #TrustInPeerReview

Peer Review Week 2020 - Trust in Peer ReviewSeptember 21-25 marks the sixth annual Peer Review Week event with a focus this year on “shining a light on how the peer review process works and why it helps build trust in research” through its theme, Trust in Peer Review.

As academic authors, we participate in the peer review process and recognize the importance of peer review on the scholarly publishing process. [Read more…]

What to do when you receive a revise & resubmit decision

quality controlIn her recent webinar, “An Editor’s View From Journal Article Submission to Publication”, Micki M. Caskey discussed the aspects of a Revise & Resubmit (R&R) decision from a publisher and what authors should do in response to such a decision.

First, she says, “celebrate the decision”. Then, respond to the reviewer feedback. [Read more…]

Feedback: Ah, just right

A woman seated on a bed sampling foodsUndoubtedly, we all know the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. The part I have in mind, is when Goldilocks seeks equilibrium: porridge neither too hot nor cold and a bed neither too soft nor too hard.

Many authors seek out feedback or opinions on their work before submission. Of course, peer review will yield comments and likely things to change or address. All this feedback has value, but it is important to cast it in the right light. [Read more…]

3 Tips for making revision decisions based on reviewer comments

positive reviewIn a recent TAA webinar, “Responding to Reviewers’ Comments”, Mark Pedretti shared three key elements to responding to reviewer comments when presented with the opportunity to revise and resubmit a journal article. In addition to sizing up the editors and writing the response letter, Pedretti shared advice on how to evaluate the reviewer comments to make revision decisions that improve your submission.

Tip #1 – Categorize reviewer comments [Read more…]

What makes for a quality peer review? TAA members’ perspectives

Peer Review Week 2019: Quality in peer reviewIn preparation for this week’s Peer Review Week theme of “Quality in Peer Review”, I decided to reach out to several members of our TAA community for insight into the peer review process from either the author’s perspective, reviewer’s perspective, or both.

Regardless of the perspective, I asked for the answer to a single question, “What makes for a quality peer review process?” Eight TAA members share their insights: [Read more…]

Safeguarding your scholarship in OA: What to look for and what to avoid

As open access publishing matures into an accepted (and in some disciplines, the standard) form of scholarly communication, it is more important than ever to be able to spot what Jeffrey Beall calls “predatory publications”, publications that accept article processing fees but fail to provide essential editorial services.  As academic librarians who have many years of experience helping faculty navigate this new landscape, we recommend using the following strategies for safeguarding your scholarship while pursuing open access options for your work. [Read more…]