当前位置: X-MOL 学术Research Integrity and Peer Review › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities
Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2021-11-18 , DOI: 10.1186/s41073-021-00116-4
Veli-Matti Karhulahti 1 , Hans-Joachim Backe 2
Affiliation  

Background

Open peer review practices are increasing in medicine and life sciences, but in social sciences and humanities (SSH) 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

SSH 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.

Conclusions

Editors 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.



中文翻译:

同行评审的透明度:与社会科学和人文学科主编的半结构化访谈研究

背景

医学和生命科学领域的开放同行评审实践正在增加,但在社会科学和人文科学 (SSH) 中,它们仍然很少见。我们旨在描绘出受人尊敬的 SSH 期刊的编辑如何看待开放同行评审,他们如何在他们监督的评审过程中平衡政策、道德和实用主义,以及他们如何看待自己在过程中的权力。

方法

我们对受人尊敬的 SSH 期刊的编辑进行了 12 次预先注册的半结构化访谈。访谈包括 21 个问题,平均持续 67 分钟。采访被转录,描述性编码,并组织成代码系列。

结果

SSH 编辑看到匿名同行评审的好处超过了开放同行评审的好处。他们认为匿名同行评审是作者和编辑应遵循的“黄金标准”,以尊重机构政策;此外,匿名审查也因其提供的保护而被认为在道德上更优越,并且由于更容易寻找审查者而更加务实。最后,编辑们承认了他们在出版过程中的力量,并报告了使他们的工作尽可能公正的策略。

结论

与开放同行相比,SSH 期刊的编辑更喜欢匿名同行评审的好处,并承认他们在出版过程中拥有的权力,在此期间作者几乎完全向编辑机构披露。我们建议期刊通过列出对每个审查阶段的决定做出贡献的所有机构,来传达其手稿审查过程的透明度要素。

更新日期:2021-11-18
down
wechat
bug