Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers

Abstract

This paper presents selected findings from the first year of a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. Specifically, the aims of the paper are to show: (1) how much experience and knowledge ECRs had of peer review – both as authors and as reviewers; (2) what they felt the benefits were and what suggestions they had for improvement; (3) what they thought of open peer review (OPR); and (4) who they felt should organize peer review. Data were obtained from 116 science and social science ECRs, most of whom had published and were subject to in‐depth interviews conducted face‐to‐face, via Skype, or over the telephone. An extensive literature review was also conducted to provide a context and supplementary data for the findings. The main findings were that: (1) most ECRS are well informed about peer review and generally like the experience, largely because of the learning experiences obtained; (2) they like blind double‐peer review, but would like some improvements, especially with regards to reviewer quality; (3) most are uncomfortable with the idea of OPR; and (4) most would like publishers to continue organizing peer review because of their perceived independence.

‘The constant rejections hurt’: Skills and personal attributes needed to successfully complete a thesis by publication

“…As noted by Rodríguez‐Bravo et al . (), ‘peer review can be seen as a form of schooling, which all ECRs have to endure in order to obtain security and to progress in their career’ (p. 275).…”

Early career researchers and their authorship and peer review beliefs and practices: An international study

“…We asked them what the main reason for their preference was, and as expected (and as informed by the interviews), anonymity was the main reason (Table ). As we learned from the interviews, ECRs do not like putting their head above the water and attracting unwelcome criticisms (Rodríguez‐Bravo et al ., ). Around 40 used the ‘other’ option to provide more reasons for their choice.…”

“…The study also showed that many have experience in peer review (in both being reviewed and reviewing the work of others) and consider it a very important process. Although they want some small improvements, they do not want wholesale changes to the current system (Rodríguez‐Bravo et al ., ).…”

What does better peer review look like? Underlying principles and recommendations for better practice

“…Unfortunately, there are still too many examples of manuscripts receiving cursory reviews (Rodriguez‐Bravo et al, ). Reviewers need to be held accountable for such bad practices, primarily by the handling editor.…”