Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities

Research Integrity and Peer Review 6 (1) (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

BackgroundOpen peer review practices are increasing in medicine and life sciences, but in social sciences and humanities they are still rare. We aimed to map out how editors of respected SSH journals perceive open peer review, how they balance policy, ethics, and pragmatism in the review processes they oversee, and how they view their own power in the process.MethodsWe conducted 12 pre-registered semi-structured interviews with editors of respected SSH journals. Interviews consisted of 21 questions and lasted an average of 67 min. Interviews were transcribed, descriptively coded, and organized into code families.ResultsSSH editors saw anonymized peer review benefits to outweigh those of open peer review. They considered anonymized peer review the “gold standard” that authors and editors are expected to follow to respect institutional policies; moreover, anonymized review was also perceived as ethically superior due to the protection it provides, and more pragmatic due to eased seeking of reviewers. Finally, editors acknowledged their power in the publication process and reported strategies for keeping their work as unbiased as possible.ConclusionsEditors of SSH journals preferred the benefits of anonymized peer review over open peer and acknowledged the power they hold in the publication process during which authors are almost completely disclosed to editorial bodies. We recommend journals to communicate the transparency elements of their manuscript review processes by listing all bodies who contributed to the decision on every review stage.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 97,297

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Peering, viewing and reviewing: What makes a Peer review good. Mohini & Sakir Ahmed - 2022 - Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics 3 (2):119-124.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-11-18

Downloads
19 (#927,121)

6 months
7 (#958,859)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations