Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

Abstract

Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 journal editors of high-impact journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. Editors were asked for details about peer review policies and practices at their journals, as well as their views on five publication ethics issues. Key findings included: almost half of surveyed journals checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, adoption of “open” policies was uncommon and a fifth of editors reported that disagreement with a reviewer’s recommendation would be grounds for editing a report (with or without the reviewer’s permission). The majority of editors expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to raw data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their journals and replication studies. These results highlight differences in peer review policies across journals and provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role of peer review in scholarly publishing, and transparency in editorial and publishing policy.