The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
Background Publishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in th...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
F1000 Research Ltd
2016-10-01
|
| Series: | F1000Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://f1000research.com/articles/5-683/v2 |
| _version_ | 1819062038526164992 |
|---|---|
| author | Marco Giordan Attila Csikasz-Nagy Andrew M. Collings Federico Vaggi |
| author_facet | Marco Giordan Attila Csikasz-Nagy Andrew M. Collings Federico Vaggi |
| author_sort | Marco Giordan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background Publishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications. Methods Here we examine an element of the editorial process at eLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions to eLife since June 2012, of which 2,747 were sent for peer review. This subset of 2747 papers was then analysed in detail. Results The Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and five days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). Moreover, editors acting as reviewers had no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates. Conclusions An important aspect of eLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T14:52:26Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-199434d14eab4d3fb0c84c4691ac33e1 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2046-1402 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T14:52:26Z |
| publishDate | 2016-10-01 |
| publisher | F1000 Research Ltd |
| record_format | Article |
| series | F1000Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-199434d14eab4d3fb0c84c4691ac33e12022-12-21T18:59:50ZengF1000 Research LtdF1000Research2046-14022016-10-01510.12688/f1000research.8452.210481The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]Marco Giordan0Attila Csikasz-Nagy1Andrew M. Collings2Federico Vaggi3Fondazione Edmund Mach, San Michele, ItalyKing's College London, London, UKeLife Sciences Publications Ltd, Cambridge, UKFondazione Edmund Mach, San Michele, ItalyBackground Publishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications. Methods Here we examine an element of the editorial process at eLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions to eLife since June 2012, of which 2,747 were sent for peer review. This subset of 2747 papers was then analysed in detail. Results The Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and five days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). Moreover, editors acting as reviewers had no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates. Conclusions An important aspect of eLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.https://f1000research.com/articles/5-683/v2Publishing & Peer Review |
| spellingShingle | Marco Giordan Attila Csikasz-Nagy Andrew M. Collings Federico Vaggi The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] F1000Research Publishing & Peer Review |
| title | The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] |
| title_full | The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] |
| title_fullStr | The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] |
| title_full_unstemmed | The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] |
| title_short | The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] |
| title_sort | effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer review process version 2 referees 2 approved 1 approved with reservations |
| topic | Publishing & Peer Review |
| url | https://f1000research.com/articles/5-683/v2 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT marcogiordan theeffectsofaneditorservingasoneofthereviewersduringthepeerreviewprocessversion2referees2approved1approvedwithreservations AT attilacsikasznagy theeffectsofaneditorservingasoneofthereviewersduringthepeerreviewprocessversion2referees2approved1approvedwithreservations AT andrewmcollings theeffectsofaneditorservingasoneofthereviewersduringthepeerreviewprocessversion2referees2approved1approvedwithreservations AT federicovaggi theeffectsofaneditorservingasoneofthereviewersduringthepeerreviewprocessversion2referees2approved1approvedwithreservations AT marcogiordan effectsofaneditorservingasoneofthereviewersduringthepeerreviewprocessversion2referees2approved1approvedwithreservations AT attilacsikasznagy effectsofaneditorservingasoneofthereviewersduringthepeerreviewprocessversion2referees2approved1approvedwithreservations AT andrewmcollings effectsofaneditorservingasoneofthereviewersduringthepeerreviewprocessversion2referees2approved1approvedwithreservations AT federicovaggi effectsofaneditorservingasoneofthereviewersduringthepeerreviewprocessversion2referees2approved1approvedwithreservations |