Accessibility to editorial information in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery journals: The authors' point of view

Castelo‐Baz, Pablo; Leira-Feijoo, Yago; Seoane-Romero, Juan M.; Varela‐Centelles, Pablo; Seoane, Juan

doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2015.06.005

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…in medical journals how this situation might be amended [e.g. 4 , 21 ]. Increasing availability of information regarding the editorial procedure might be beneficial for journals themselves, since disclosure of information about the editorial and peer-review process correlates with authors’ perceptions of a high-quality peer review process and the journal rejecting hoax papers [ 22 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Processes of editorial handling and peer review are usually hidden behind curtains of confidentiality or anonymity. But worse, journal policies which should orient authors and readers as to the editorial standards employed by individual journals, including what the general type of peer review system is or whether preprinting manuscripts is allowed, have been suggested to be often unclear [ 4 – 6 ]. Unclear policies, for example regarding copyright or licensing, could expose researchers to unnecessary risk [ 5 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals

Klebel

Reichmann

Polka³

et al. 2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clear and findable publishing policies are important for authors to choose appropriate journals for publication. We investigated the clarity of policies of 171 major academic journals across disciplines regarding peer review and preprinting. 31.6% of journals surveyed do not provide information on the type of peer review they use. Information on whether preprints can be posted or not is unclear in 39.2% of journals. 58.5% of journals offer no clear information on whether reviewer identities are revealed to authors. Around 75% of journals have no clear policy on co-reviewing, citation of preprints, and publication of reviewer identities. Information regarding practices of open peer review is even more scarce, with <20% of journals providing clear information. Having found a lack of clear information, we conclude by examining the implications this has for researchers (especially early career) and the spread of open research practices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals

Klebel

Reichmann

Polka³

et al. 2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Processes of editorial handling and peer review are usually hidden behind curtains of confidentiality or anonymity. But worse, journal policies which should orient authors and readers as to the editorial standards employed by individual journals, including what the general 35 type of peer review system is or whether preprinting manuscripts is allowed, have been suggested to be often unclear (Castelo-Baz et al, 2015;Chawla, 2018;Nambiar et al, 2014). Unclear policies, for example regarding copyright or licensing, could expose researchers to unnecessary risk (Chawla, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals

Klebel

Reichmann

McDowell

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clear and findable publishing policies are important for authors to choose appropriate journals 15 for publication. We investigated the clarity of policies of 171 major academic journals across disciplines regarding peer review and preprinting. 31.6% of journals surveyed do not provide information on the type of peer review they use. Information on whether preprints can be posted or not is unclear in 39.2% of journals. 58.5% of journals offer no clear information on whether reviewer identities are revealed to authors. Around 75% of journals have no clear policy on co-20 reviewing, citation of preprints, and publication of reviewer identities. Information regarding practices of Open Peer Review is even more scarce, with <20% of journals providing clear information. Having found a lack of clear information, we conclude by examining the implications this has for researchers (especially early career) and the spread of open research practices. 25

show abstract

“…Previous studies on review process of articles often cover aspects such as methods for improving the quality of articles,[9101112] average review time,[13] acceptance and rejection ratio of articles,[14] reviewers’ characteristics,[14] review ethics,[410] effects of reviewers’ demographic characteristics on review process,[15] principles of writing review reports,[16] and criteria and measures or review process. [417] In fact, similar studies rarely investigate the problems of the review process from the point of view of different people.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%