Traditional Peer Review ULS Scholarly Communications - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Traditional Peer Review

ULS Scholarly Communications Lunch and Learn #14

Office of Scholarly Communication and PublishingUniversity Library SystemUniversity of Pittsburgh

August 21,

2014

Slide2

Traditional Peer Review What is peer review?Why should librarians care about peer review?

How does it work? - the processResearch ethics and peer reviewProblems and limitations of traditional peer reviewNEXT MONTH: Innovations in peer review

Slide3

What is peer review?Peer review is expert, independent, unbiased scrutiny of research to:self-regulate quality standards within an academic discipliner

einforce the scientific methodprovide credibility for research resultsdetermine suitability for scholarly publicationScholarly peer review is different from:professional peer reviewclinical peer review

Slide4

Why should librarians care about peer review?essential to critical evaluation of information sourcesadds value and credibility to resources we provide

critical for the library as publisherlibrarians may serve as reviewers ourselvesimportant to the clients we serveMajor changes are underway - we need to understand them!

Slide5

History of peer review1752: Royal Society of London establishes ‘Committee on Papers’reviews papers for the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

journal already in existence for 86 years

Slide6

Some characteristics of peer reviewConducted by independent expertsFree from personal and professional biasAnonymouss

ingle blind: identity of reviewer is not known to authordouble blind: identity of author and reviewer unknown to each otherNorms and processes vary by discipline

Slide7

What is being evaluated?Research methodologyScientific soundnessStatistical design and analysisGeneral presentation of results

Degree to which conclusions are supported by evidenceCan the research be replicated by another researcher?

Slide8

What is being evaluated?Originality of researchNovelty and overlap with similar researchRelevance: importance to the disciplineAnticipated level of interest

Appropriateness for scope of journal (or journal section)

Slide9

Traditional peer review:THE PROCESS

Slide10

Responsibility of the AuthorRemoving identifying information from the submissionDo not include authorship in the submission document

Remove identifying information from the document propertiesDo not attempt to discover the identity of the reviewer and, if an author accidentally discovers the reviewer’s identity, do not contact them regarding the submission

Slide11

Responsibility of the ReviewerDisclose to the editor any conflicts of interestOnly review submissions for which you have expertiseAgree to review only if you can do so in a timely mannerDecline reviews similar to your own current work in preparation or submission

Don’t share the submission or its details with othersSupport criticisms with evidenceDo not attempt to discover the author’s identity, and if you accidentally do so, inform the editor immediately

Slide12

Reviewing: A Labor of Love?Reviewers typically do not get paidReviewers are not publicly acknowledged for individual reviewsSome journals give an annual award for the most active reviewer (Oh yeah! A plaque!)

A single review can take several hours to complete

Slide13

RESEARCH ETHICS andPEER REVIEW

Slide14

Test Your Review Ethics KnowledgeYou are an editor of a journal that practices double-blind peer review. An author of a recently-reviewed (but not yet published) article claims that the rejection received from Reviewer #2 is due to personal bias – the author alleges that Reviewer #2 discerned their identity from the very unique data set that they were using and, due to a feud between Reviewer #2 and the author’s dissertation advisor, rejected the article for non-scholarly reasons. The identity of Reviewer #2 is, in fact, the person alleged to be in a feud with the author’s advisor. What do you do?

Slide15

Options:A. Nothing. Reviewers are allowed to reject the article for any reason.B. Investigate the connection between Reviewer #2 and the dissertation advisor in question, but leave the review as it stands.

C. Thank the author for their concern and recruit another peer reviewer to take the place of Reviewer #2, throwing out Reviewer #2’s comments.D. Encourage the author to take any methodological or theoretical concerns of Reviewer #2 into consideration, but favor the responses of Reviewers 1 and 3 more heavily.

Choose this if the review is pure vitriolChoose this one if the review has substance

Slide16

Test Your Review Ethics KnowledgeAs a reviewer for a double-blind peer reviewed medical journal, you notice that the author of a paper on different types of treatment for a disease repeatedly cites works from a particular pharmaceuticals group. You know that there are many competing pharmaceuticals companies with different treatments available and suspect that the author may be affiliated with this group in some way. However, due to the double-blind process, you do not know the name or affiliation

of the author, and no information is given in the article. Is this a problem, and if so, what do you do?

Slide17

Options:A. Report the issue to the editor with relevant evidence. B. Conduct your own investigation, e-mailing the members of the cited pharmaceutical group to inquire if any of them have submitted a paper to the journal recently, then report your findings to the editor.

C. Write your own paper responding to this article with criticisms about Conflict of Interest, then submit it to the same journal before you have completed your review.D. Nothing. People from pharmaceuticals groups are allowed to write papers too.

Slide18

Part 2: As the editor in this instance, with the reviewer presenting all relevant evidence, what do you do?

Slide19

Options: A. Nothing. Conflicts of interest are not the domain of your journal.B. Contact the author of the paper and request a statement of any conflicts of interest. C. Immediately reject the paper for ethical reasons.

D. Contact the author’s organization informing them of ethical misconduct.

Slide20

Test Your Review Ethics KnowledgeYou are an author of a journal article investigating the dialect of an unstudied Inuit fishing community. While your article is being formatted for publication, you attend a

presentation at a conference about dialects of Inuit by a Professor Richard Smith and, to your shock, one of his slides contains the exact same data that you reported in your unpublished article! The community is small and you are pretty sure you would know all of the other researchers who have done work in the area, and Richard Smith is not one of them. You notice that Professor Smith doesn’t cite the source of his data and you suspect that he was a reviewer of your article. What should you do?

Slide21

Options:A. This is one of the hazards of publishing in academic journals. There is nothing you can do. B. During the question and answer session, publicly accuse Professor Smith of ‘scooping’ your data and demand answers.

C. Contact the editor of the journal you are publishing in, presenting all of the evidence and your concerns.D. Call the U.S. copyright office and file a complaint against Professor Smith.

Slide22

Part 2:You are the editor of the journal who receives the author’s complaint. You know that Professor Richard Smith was one of the reviewers for this article. What do you do?

Slide23

Options:A. Say thank you to the author and promise to investigate.B. Review the files and the timeline to see if Professor Smith could have scooped the data. C. Contact Professor Smith directly to request an explanation.D. Contact the reviewer’s institution requesting an investigation.

E. Remove the reviewer from your review database and consider reporting the case in your journal.

Answer: all of the above, in this order, if there is a breach of reviewer conduct!

Slide24

Traditional peer review:limitations and challenges

Slide25

Traditional peer review:limitations and challengesLabor intensiveReviewers are overtaxed and under-rewardedTime-consuming; slows the pace of research

Process is open to bias, self-interest, and cronyismValuable research can be lost through subjective filtering for relevance and importanceLimits transparency and accountability

Slide26

NEXT MONTHInnovations in Peer ReviewOpen peer reviewThe

preprint publishing modelPost-publication peer review (PubPeer)Filtering for methodology only (PLoS One and PeerJ)Rewarding and rating peer reviewersIndependent peer review, pre-submission (Rubriq)

No hybrid Open AccessNo ‘delayed’ Open AccessBe listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (unless the journal is too new for DOAJ eligibility) Be a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association or adhere to its Code of ConductHave publicly available a standard article fee schedule