Editors' Update is your one-stop online resource to discover more about the latest developments in journal publishing, policies and initiatives that affect you as an editor, as well as other services and support available. Discover and participate in upcoming events and webinars and join in topical discussions with your peers.
Of interest to: Journal editors (key), additionally authors and reviewers Archive views to date: 845+ Average feedback: 4.4 out of 5
Of interest to: Journal editors (key), additionally authors and reviewers
Archive views to date: 845+
Average feedback: 4.4 out of 5
5 Jun 2011 2 Comments
“A real-life, hands-on approach like this equips future reviewers like never before.” — Irene Kanter-Schlifke, Publisher In many areas of research, the growth of paper submissions is outpacing the growth of qualified reviewers and resulting in pressure on the peer review system. As an editor, you will be only too aware of the challenge of [...]
"A real-life, hands-on approach like this equips future reviewers like never before." — Irene Kanter-Schlifke, Publisher
In many areas of research, the growth of paper submissions is outpacing the growth of qualified reviewers and resulting in pressure on the peer review system. As an editor, you will be only too aware of the challenge of finding good reviewers. Together with our editorial community, journal publishers at Elsevier have been working on a number of programs to develop and nurture your future pool of reviewers.
Following a request from reviewers for increased support and guidance, and tests by current journal editors, the Reviewer Guidelines are now available on all Elsevier journal homepages and on our Reviewers’ homepage.
A step-by-step guide through the various stages of the peer-review process, the guidelines begin with the ‘purpose of peer review’ (addressing why reviewers should review); move on to conducting the review itself (what criteria should the reviewer be taking into account); and finish with submitting the report to the editor. They include key topics relevant to peer review, such as conducting the review, originality of research, the structure of a paper and ethical issues, together with a sample peer review report.
Reviewer Workshops allow participants to put the Reviewer Guidelines into context. “They aim to promote and explain the fundamentals and techniques that reviewers should adhere to when reviewing manuscripts for academic journals,” explains Andrea Hoogenkamp-O’Brien, Customer Communications Manager. Such workshops have been taking place across China, together with input from some Elsevier journal editors giving young Chinese scientists the opportunity to review scientific papers for international journals and to get hands-on training.
During a workshop, reviewers receive practical information on Elsevier publishing policies and procedures together with advice from other reviewers and editors, all with the aim to expedite the process of reviewing papers. Throughout the sessions, there is thorough discussion of the philosophy of peer review, various steps of the review process and examples from recent journals.
“The result is that reviewers get a real opportunity to better understand the principles and methods involved in reviewing for an international journal,” notes Hoogenkamp-O’Brien. "This is invaluable experience for the next step in our program."
This program aims to extend the help given to reviewers during workshops by also giving some coaching and direct feedback on the reports that the trainees have submitted. Elsevier Publisher Irene Kanter-Schlifke has been piloting this program in two Institutions; Lille University, France, and the Saarland University in Saarbrücken, Germany. Each program involved 10-12 trainees.
“It is important that the trainees review a manuscript that is both controversial and in their area of expertise. During the workshop, an introduction on reviewing is given, followed by a discussion of the review and disclosure of the original ‘fate’ of the paper (reviews and the final article, if accepted for publication). A real-life, hands-on approach like this equips future reviewers like never before,” explains Kanter-Schlifke.
After the workshop, trainees are invited through the system to review at least two manuscripts within a given timeframe. Each trainee is supported by a mentor who discusses the reviews with the trainee and gives feedback and guidance. The mentor finally decides when a trainee has gained enough experience to review live manuscripts. After the program, each trainee receives a certificate of participation from Elsevier.
“There are a few thoughts on what defines a good reviewer,” adds Hoogenkamp-O’Brien. “The definition I particularly like is: A good reviewer should know the journal and should have the knowledge to be able to fairly and objectively give a good report of the manuscript they are reviewing. They should concentrate on offering useful advice to authors rather than giving summary reports to editors.”
If you are interested in running either a Reviewer Workshop or Reviewer Mentorship Program at your institute or would like some further information, please email Editors' Update.
We want to hear your views on these and other issues surrounding the challenges faced by editors and peer review. Please share your thoughts by posting a comment at the bottom of this page.
View a videocast of a Reviewer Workshop in China
Irene Kanter-Schlifke
Irene Kanter-Schlifke
PUBLISHER
In 2008, Irene began work as a Publisher for Elsevier’s Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences portfolio of journals. In her current role as publisher, she has been working on a number of exciting initiatives with her editors and colleagues, one of which is helping to organize and run a mentorship program for new reviewers. She holds a PhD in Neurology from Wallenberg Neuroscience Centre, in Lund, Sweden. Before coming to Elsevier, she worked at Centocor (now Janssen Biologics), part of Johnson & Johnson pharmaceuticals in The Netherlands.
Andrea Hoogenkamp-O'Brien
Andrea Hoogenkamp-O'Brien
CUSTOMER COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER
Andrea has recently started working in the Strategy and Journal Services department of Elsevier in Amsterdam, where she is part of a team responsible for developing new initiatives to improve services for authors, editors and reviewers. She joins Elsevier from FEMS in Delft where she had worked as the Editorial Coordinator, responsible for managing the publications unit, which publishes five FEMS Microbiology journals. Prior to that, Andrea held the position of Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Amsterdam.
18 Sep 2011 7 Comments
“In China, the research community is gaining year on year in resources and ability. That is very exciting to be around.” — Tracey Brown, Managing Director, Sense About Science Tracey Brown believes peer review is vital to good science and the society that uses it. And it’s a conviction the Managing Director of Sense About [...]
"In China, the research community is gaining year on year in resources and ability. That is very exciting to be around.” — Tracey Brown, Managing Director, Sense About Science
Tracey Brown believes peer review is vital to good science and the society that uses it.
And it’s a conviction the Managing Director of Sense About Science shares with members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, as she discovered during a trip to the research-rich country in March this year.
Brown embarked on the fact-finding mission with two key aims in mind; she was keen to test out views advanced about the integration of Chinese authors and reviewers into international STM publishing, and to explore future collaborations to help researchers, policy makers and journalists identify the best science.
During the two-week visit, which was supported by Elsevier, she met not only the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), but Science.net, journalists, post docs and publishers.
Brown says: “It was clear that CAS is keen to discuss the best ways to evaluate research and to explore their concerns about what peer-reviewed publishing can - and can't - deliver. In an effort to avoid cronyism and subjective assessment in China, there has been a shift towards using flatter measurements; for example, the Impact Factor. There is a feeling, however, that these do not reveal enough about individual papers or the research output of an institution. Most people, including CAS, are coming to the conclusion that what we really need is a mix of the two.”
Asked to highlight some of her key learnings during the trip, Brown says:
“People raised many interesting points and some quite contradictory ones. The early career researchers I spoke with viewed international journals as motivated by quality and fairness, and in some cases compared them favourably with Chinese journals, which can be seen as wedded to the relationships and prestige of individuals and institutions.
“On the other hand, some of the more editorially-experienced people had stories of less than positive attitudes among international editors to Chinese papers. They were concerned about a head-in-the-sand approach to such a major research base and that valuable new insights could be missed.”
Tracey Brown; David Ruth, Elsevier Senior Vice President Global Communications; and Hugo Zhang, Elsevier Managing Director S&T China (left) meet with Mr Jinghai Li, Vice President of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (right)
There were also a few eye-opening moments for Brown.
She explains: “I had not expected people’s personal experiences to differ so widely. For example, I was speaking to two post doc students at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Both had published very successfully early in their careers in some of the top journals - the elite of the elite. One was receiving almost weekly requests to review while the other had received only one request in a year. That may reflect the different nature of their papers but I heard their stories repeated elsewhere. It is perhaps to be expected that peer-review requests from international journals are still a bit of a hit and miss process in China.”
She adds: “Each time I was about to draw a conclusion about anything I would meet someone who took me in a different direction – a symptom, I imagine, of things being a work in progress there.
“Another surprising thing for me was the high level of confidence in the research community in contrast to the UK, and perhaps the US, where universities face straitened circumstances. In China, the research community is gaining year on year in resources and ability. That is very exciting to be around.”
Commenting on the quality – and quantity – of papers submitted by Chinese researchers, Brown says: “There is some concern, internationally, about filtering the sheer weight of papers produced by China. A big sea of papers makes it difficult to pick out the best.
“The thing is, there is a large pressure to publish in China and doing so in international journals brings career breaks and prestige. While lead institutions no longer pay incentives for this, some second-tier universities still appear to, which may contribute to journals being overwhelmed by unsuitable papers.
“We discovered that inappropriate submissions also stem from a lack of local knowledge about international journals, with younger researchers copying where their supervisors have published. Library services can play a very important role in widening the pool of journals considered.”
She adds: “Since returning I have been in touch with members of the Publishing Research Consortium to discuss the prospect of looking at how these new regions, such as China and India, are being integrated. Do editors now need something different from publishers with regard to support and advice? These are questions I know publishers are asking too. There is clearly some opportunity for international publishers to improve the availability of information about how to publish and where to publish, probably via librarians in those institutions where library services are developing and pro-active.”
And what does Brown think the next five years will hold for the Chinese research community?
“Because of the volume of research and population size, even minority behaviors in China are likely to have a significant effect. If just a proportion of the new generation of researchers are trained and engaged with reviewing, it could have a big impact on sharing the reviewing burden. I know that there are already programs underway, such as Elsevier’s Reviewer Workshops and Reviewer Mentorship Program. The value of their contribution to the research output cannot be overstated – just like so many other things in China at the moment!”
What is Sense About Science?
Sense About Science is a UK charitable trust that equips people to make sense of science and evidence on issues that matter to society. With a network of more than 4,000 scientists, the organization works with scientific bodies, research publishers, policy makers, the public and the media, to lead public discussions about science and evidence. Through award-winning public campaigns, it shares the tools of scientific thinking and the peer-review process. Sense About Science’s growing Voice of Young Science network engages hundreds of early career researchers in public debates about science. Sense About Science will be publishing a Chinese edition of its public guide to peer review I Don’t Know What to Believe early in 2012 in collaboration with learned societies, patient groups and journalists.
Tracey Brown
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF SENSE ABOUT SCIENCE
Tracey has been the Director of Sense About Science since shortly after it was established in 2002. Tracey is a trustee of Centre of the Cell and MATTER. In 2009 she became a commissioner for the UK Drugs Policy Commission. She sits on the Outreach Committee of the Royal College of Pathologists and in 2009 was made a Friend of the College.
Editors today are confronted with a number of challenges to the peer-review process, for example finding reviewers. That means new and different approaches are required, Frank H Arthur writes.
Frank H Arthur | USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Center for Grain and Animal Health Research | Regional Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Stored Products Research
I have been a Regional Editor of the Journal of Stored Products Research since November of 2006, and continue to serve as a reviewer for other scientific journals. Editors today are being confronted with a number of challenges to the peer review process, including obtaining the peer reviews necessary to evaluate scientific studies for journal publication. New and different approaches are necessary to cultivate and maintain a solid base of reviewers.
First, editors must become more active in pre-screening manuscripts before they are sent out for review. As a reviewer, I regularly receive manuscripts that are severely deficient in English grammar and construction, along with the stated or implicit assumption that it is also my responsibility to re-write these manuscripts in addition to evaluating the scientific content. This expectation places an unfair burden on reviewers and editors, who are usually serving on a volunteer basis. Related issues include being sent manuscripts that are obviously lacking in scientific quality for that journal, out of scope, or in a completely different format from what is specified. Receiving these types of manuscripts increases frustration on the part of reviewers, and editors can, and should, simply return those manuscripts to the authors and let them address the deficiencies. The authors are ultimately responsible for the quality of the manuscript.
Second, editors should focus on obtaining reviews from scientists who are actively publishing in their journal. Every month I receive several automatic ‘invitation to review” emails from journals where I have not published in the past, nor am I likely to do so in the future, including various new online journals. Many scientists will decline those invitations unless there is overwhelming interest in the topic of the paper. I also receive numerous requests for reviews from journals where I have published only sporadically as a submitting or lead author, and often not at all for the past several years. Regular contributors have a more vested interest in the journal but, at the same time, editors must not continually ask the same people to review because “they cannot find anyone else”. Efforts must be made to broaden the review base and increase participation in the review process.
Third, assuming reviews are being solicited from regular contributors to a journal, editors should first make personal contact with reviewers instead of just generating an “invitation to review” email. However, if the reviewer declines a review because of their current workload, the editor should go to someone else, rather than asking the reviewer for a suggested alternative. In my experience, many scientists will not do a review if they know a colleague has declined because he or she was “too busy”, because they are busy as well. I do not suggest colleagues when I decline a review unless that person is more appropriate because of their expertise, and I generally let them know that I have, or will, recommend them as a reviewer.
Within many biological disciplines, the number of professional scientists is declining, pressure to obtain outside funding is increasing, and research scientists are being required to perform administrative functions as well. The steps discussed above are just a few ways editors can facilitate the peer review process to ease the burden on journal reviewers.
Discover new ways to identify and retain the best reviewers in your field; how to motivate them to do a good job and encourage them to repeat review for you.
Discover new ways to identify and retain the best reviewers in your field; how to motivate them to do a good job and encourage them to repeat review for you.
On March 28th, Elsevier launched the ‘How do you see the future of peer review?’ challenge. We hope that this challenge will help inform the ongoing discussions on peer review.
Clare Lehane | Executive Publisher, Energy & Planetary Sciences, Elsevier
On Wednesday 28th March, Elsevier launched the How do you see the future of peer review? challenge. The aim of the challenge is to invite our reviewing community to submit ideas on any of the following three aspects of the peer review system (for journals):
The challenge website will remain open to entries until midnight on Monday 7th May, 2012 (CET).
We will work with the overall winners of the challenge to determine if their idea could be piloted with a suitable Elsevier journal, and in cooperation with the editors of that pilot journal. The winning ideas will be announced around 15th August via the challenge website.
We hope that this challenge will help inform the ongoing discussions on peer review and help us, as your publishing partners, to work more closely with the reviewing community.
You are welcome to forward this challenge announcement to your colleagues and editorial network to encourage submissions.
4 Jun 2012 4 Comments
Peer review has a long history; it has been a part of scientific communication since the appearance of the first journals in the 1660s. The Royal Philosophical Transactions is accredited as being the first journal to introduce peer review. Each year more than 1.3 million learned articles are published in peer-reviewed journals. Such is its [...]
Peer review has a long history; it has been a part of scientific communication since the appearance of the first journals in the 1660s. The Royal Philosophical Transactions is accredited as being the first journal to introduce peer review.
Each year more than 1.3 million learned articles are published in peer-reviewed journals. Such is its importance that according to Ziman (1968)1 it is ‘the lynchpin about which the whole business of science is pivoted.’
However, the expansion of the global research community and the year on year increase in the number of papers published means the pressure on the peer-review system has grown. Moreover, as the pressure has increased, so too has the volume of those questioning peer review’s effectiveness. Some are worried by bias and are concerned it is not objective, others are anxious about the length of time it takes for an article to go through the peer-review process and some worry about its efficiency. Richard Smith2, former Editor of the BMJ, said the following about peer review in 2006:
“.. it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.”
In response to the perceived challenges, peer review has evolved and continues to do so. Working with you, the Editor, we hope to be able to improve and streamline the peer-review process, ultimately easing the burden on both reviewers and Editors. In this article, we take a closer look at initiatives in Elsevier that tackle some of the challenges in peer review and evaluate the progress of some of these pilots.
Running from March to May 2012, this web-based Challenge invited submissions on any aspect that could significantly add to the current peer-review system. Entries could range from designing a completely new system, to working within an existing peer-review method (like the single blind system).
The Challenge also welcomed entries that explored how publishers and Editors can help early career researchers become reviewers, or how reviewers can be recognized by either their institutes or publishers.
The entry phase of the Challenge closed on 7th May and the judges are now going through the submissions to pick out up to 10 finalists, whose ideas will be posted on the Challenge website. We will be inviting comments from the community on these ideas before the judges make their final decisions, taking into account any relevant community comments. Please do check the Peer Review Challenge website from 12th June onwards for details of the finalists!
For more information on this initiative, please contact Clare Lehane, Executive Publisher, STM Publishing, c.lehane@elsevier.com
Figure 1. The Article Transfer Service at a glance.
As an Editor, you may frequently be confronted with manuscripts that are out of scope or are simply not suitable for the journal; however, they still contain sound research. With this in mind, we have developed the complementary Article Transfer Service (ATS) which allows the paper to be moved to a more appropriate journal. Currently, Editors within the fields of Pharma Sciences, Physics and Immunology, are able to offer authors this option and, if the author agrees, we can promptly transfer the manuscript on their behalf.
Key advantages of the Article Transfer Service:
Results so far:
- Editors have offered to transfer up to 35% of rejected manuscripts and up to 35% of offered transfers have been taken up by authors.
- Up to 20% of those transfers have been accepted by the receiver journals.
We also surveyed a number of participants in the ATS scheme and discovered the following:
- 67% of Editors think that the ATS benefits the authors, while 75% agree that having reviewer reports is beneficial.
- 55% of authors are active promoters of the scheme.
- 86% of the reviewers are willing to recommend an alternative journal to the Editor.
For more information on this pilot, please contact John Lardee, Senior Project Manager, Publishing Services, j.lardee@elsevier.com.
From feedback we know that reviewers, especially those new to the task, would value more guidance on how to peer review. This program, which is still in the developmental stages, has been created to answer that need and will consist of both theory and hands-on practice.
Theory: By attending a Reviewer Workshop, participants will be introduced to the concept and background of peer review as well as peer-review fundamentals, publication ethics and the role of a reviewer. They will also examine a specific case study. Reviewer Workshops have been taking place for a while now and participants have told us that they feel more confident after attending one. Since it is not always possible to physically attend a workshop, we are now looking into the possibility of offering a distance learning (online) alternative.
“The Reviewer Guidance Program is not only an experience that helps early career researchers become better reviewers, but also to be more critical in analyzing their own papers before submitting. In addition, this is a great opportunity for junior scientists to network with their more senior peers.” Irene Kanter-Schlifke
Hands-on practice under mentorship: This part of the Reviewer Guidance Program aims to provide participants with the experience of independently reviewing at least two manuscripts inside a specially-created EES (Elsevier Editorial System). Each trainee is supported by a mentor who discusses the reviews with them and gives feedback and guidance. The mentor finally decides when a trainee has gained enough experience to start reviewing live manuscripts. After the program, each trainee receives a certificate of participation from Elsevier. We began piloting this module at the end of last year and the first feedback is promising. One trainee commented: “I’m now more familiar with rating papers and I’m more critical when I read papers.” The mentors involved in this module, often journal Editors, also see the benefits of this initiative; one remarked: “This module is a nice opportunity to learn how to efficiently review manuscripts. Often junior scientists have no idea how it works. As well, they can better understand how their manuscripts will be reviewed.”
During the Reviewer Guidance Program we will guide participants in how to write review reports in such a way that they answer the needs of both the Editor and the author. Another expected benefit is that the program should contribute to increasing the number of trusted – and usually enthusiastic – reviewers available for Editors to call on. Irene Kanter-Schlifke is a Publisher for Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences and is closely involved in the pilot. She adds: “The Reviewer Guidance Program is not only an experience that helps early career researchers become better reviewers, but also to be more critical in analyzing their own papers before submitting. In addition, this is a great opportunity for junior scientists to network with their more senior peers.”
If you are interested in organizing a Reviewer Workshop at your institute, please contact your publisher.
Results so far: We are currently evaluating feedback and expect to do a further pilot in due course.
For more information on this program, please contact Irene Kanter-Schlifke, Publisher Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical Sciences, STM Publishing, i.kanter@elsevier.com, or Angelique Janssen, Project Manager, Publishing Services, a.janssen@elsevier.com.
Reviewers play such a vital role in the peer-review process yet their contribution often remains hidden. In addition, open reviewer reports increase peer-review transparency and assist good articles to gain authority. With that in mind, we thought why not publish reviewer reports alongside the final article on SciVerse ScienceDirect?
At the beginning of this year, we began doing just that on the journal Agricultural and Forest Meteorology.
We know from the feedback we have received that Editors welcome such a public acknowledgement of reviewers’ contributions, and we hope this step will enhance the quality of the review reports and help to capture / attract good reviewers for the journal.
How does it work?
Both authors and reviewers for the journal are informed about the new process and reviewers can indicate whether they want their name disclosed on ScienceDirect. Editors then decide if the reviewer reports are appropriate to publish alongside the article as supplementary material.
Results so far: The pilot launch attracted positive international media attention. It was also suggested that open reviewer reports could play a useful role in training early career researchers as reviewers. So far, reviewer reports have been published alongside around 13 manuscripts.
For more information on this pilot, please contact Gilles Jonker, Executive Publisher, Physical Sciences, g.jonker@elsevier.com.
In this pilot, we have asked experienced researchers to submit a one page comment on a (review) article for the journal Physics of Life Reviews. These comments are published in the same issue as the article. On average, five comments are published with the article and the author can write a rebuttal article.
Figure 2. An example of an article with open peer commentary in SciVerse ScienceDirect.
Results so far: Since the pilot was launched in January 2010, the journal has seen an increase in papers (2011 - 85 and 2010 - 74; previously the journal received around 12 papers per year). There has also been a sharp increase in usage – roughly 3,000 downloads per month compared to 2,000 per month in 2009.
For more information please contact Charon Duermeijer, Publishing Director Physics, c.duermeijer@elsevier.com.
Traditionally in peer review, Editors have chosen to approach reviewers they consider are suitably qualified to comment on a manuscript, or who would find the subject matter interesting.
But what if the reviewer could select the manuscript themselves? For a year now, we have been experimenting with this additional peer-review system on the journal Chemical Physics Letters. Each week, a selected pool of reviewers receives an overview of the new submissions. If they like a paper because it matches their expertise and interest, they can decide to review it. Because they make the decision themselves, we ask them to review the manuscript within a week.
Martin Tanke, Managing Director of Elsevier’s STM Journals, explains: “The 2009 Peer Review Survey, which we conducted with our partner Sense About Science, showed that a significant number of reviewers were sometimes hesitant to review an article because of a lack of expertise in that particular field. In addition, researchers made clear they want to improve peer review by improving article relevancy and speeding up turnaround time. PeerChoice can contribute to solving both issues.”
Figure 3. An example of the email overview a reviewer receives.
Results so far: The time taken to review the manuscript has been slightly reduced, while the time taken to accept an invitation has been halved.
For more information on this pilot, please contact Egbert van Wezenbeek, Director Publication Process Development, Publishing Services, e.wezenbeek@elsevier.com.
All these pilots have been launched with one aim in mind; to support and improve the peer-review process to the benefit of Editors, authors and reviewers.
We would love to hear your thoughts on these new approaches and your suggestions for improvements. If you have a story you would like to share, you can post it on our new Short Communications bulletin board.
1 Ziman, J.M. (1968), Public Knowledge: an essay concerning the social development of science. London: Cambridge University Press.
2 Smith, R. Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine April 2006 99.4: 178–182.
John Lardee
John Lardee
SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER, PUBLISHING SERVICES
For the last 15 years, John has been involved in managing projects to improve author, Editor and reviewer experiences with Elsevier’s products and services. Recent projects include the Article Transfer Service and the Find Reviewer Tool. John’s approach to project management is an agile one: “To develop services and products iteratively together with our Editors, authors and reviewers”. John has a Master of Science in Informatics from the Technical University of Delft.
Adrian Mulligan
Adrian Mulligan
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, RESEARCH & ACADEMIC RELATIONS
Adrian has 14 years of experience in STM publishing. The last 10 years he has spent in research have given him the unique opportunity to study the scholarly community. Recently, in partnership with Sense About Science, Adrian worked on a large scale study that examined attitudes of researchers towards peer review. He has presented on peer review at various conferences, including STM, ESOF, AAP and APE. Adrian’s background is in archaeology with a BA Honours degree and a Master of Science from Leicester University. He also has a diploma in Market Research from the Market Research Society.
As many of you know, Elsevier is currently building Evise, our next generation online submission and peer-review system. The rollout of Evise is planned to begin in the second half of 2013 and to prepare for a smooth transition, 2012 will see the introduction of new features to our current system, EES. These include something [...]
As many of you know, Elsevier is currently building Evise, our next generation online submission and peer-review system. The rollout of Evise is planned to begin in the second half of 2013 and to prepare for a smooth transition, 2012 will see the introduction of new features to our current system, EES.
These include something we know you have been keen to see – a single username and password across all EES journal sites.
Researchers have multiple roles in publishing: many authors are also reviewers; many Editors are also authors and reviewers. And researchers can perform these roles for multiple journals. We know that EES does not recognize that sufficiently so, later this year, we will begin the task of consolidating all user accounts.
Once the change has been rolled out, when you log into EES you will receive a prompt to consolidate your accounts. EES looks for matching associated email addresses when deciding which accounts to group together. If you have used different email addresses per EES site, you can indicate this during consolidation. Once you have selected the accounts to consolidate, you will receive a confirmation email. This is sent to ensure that only the account owner can give approval.
During consolidation, you will also be asked to choose a security question and answer. You will need these to reset your password if you forget it.
You will have 30 days to consolidate your accounts. After this period, you will only be able to use EES if you have consolidated your accounts.
Figure 1. The consolidation notification screen.
After you have followed the consolidation procedure, you will be able to use the same username and password to access each EES journal site you use. Your primary email address in EES will be your username. You will continue to log into each EES journal site separately.
If you have multiple roles for a single journal, you will need to log off and log in again if you want to switch your user role.
The new user consolidation functionality will be piloted in July and August 2012, with roll out activity ramping up from September 2012 onwards. We will keep you informed of our progress by email.
We are also working on consolidating the online support available for EES. This is currently spread across the Elsevier website but going forward generic information on EES will be available on Elsevier.com, while EES support information will be presented in EES. That means that if you click on Help in EES, a pop-up window will open up in which you will be able to quickly access the right support content. The content will be presented per role and per phase in the editorial process to make it easier for you. The search function will also be available in the window.
Figure 2. The new help window.
Elsevier has a number of user feedback programs and the results of these, along with the questions end users ask Elsevier customer support, are just some of the sources we call on when determining which improvements we should introduce. You can also provide feedback via evise@elsevier.com.
Edward O'Breen
MARKETING AND BRAND MANAGER, EES AND EVISE
Edward has worked on the development and launch of new products and services since 1997. Prior to joining Elsevier in 2011, he worked for telecom operators, utilities and publishers. He has a MSc degree in Business Administration from the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
A desire to understand the inner workings of the peer-review system has led a group of early career researchers to publish a new guide on the topic.
Julia Wilson | Development Manager, Sense About Science
Sense About Science is a UK charity that equips people to make sense of science and evidence
A desire to understand the inner workings of the peer-review system has led a group of early career researchers to publish a new guide on the topic.
Peer review: The nuts and bolts
Members of Sense About Science’s Voice of Young Science (VoYS) network, an active group of early career researchers who stand up for science in public debates and inspire their peers to do the same, were behind the guide. They were keen to discover how to get involved in peer review and what is being done to address some of the criticisms of the system, such as bias from reviewers. So, armed with a collection of concerns raised by their peers, they set off to interview scientists, journal editors, grant body representatives, patient group workers and journalists worldwide. The end result is the new guide, Peer review: the nuts and bolts, which is aimed at early career researchers. It received its official launch at the EuroScience Open Forum (ESOF) in Dublin this July.
In 2009, Sense About Science partnered with Elsevier to conduct one of the largest surveys of international authors and reviewers which highlighted how dedicated the scientific community is to peer review. 90% of respondents review articles because they like playing their part as a member of the academic community; 85% enjoy seeing papers and being able to improve them; and 91% believe their own last paper was improved through the peer-review process.
Just as a washing machine has a quality kite mark, peer review is a kind of quality mark for science. It tells you that the research has been conducted and presented to a standard that other scientists accept. At the same time, peer review is not saying that the research is perfect (nor that a washing machine will never break down). I’m surprised that such an integral and valuable contribution from scientists is often given little recognition in academia or training in how to do it for early career researchers.*
In writing the guide, the authors of Peer review: the nuts and bolts have not avoided criticisms of the peer-review process. They have asked journal editors and reviewers some challenging questions about scientific fraud and plagiarism going undetected; issues of trust and bias; ground-breaking research taking years to publish and the system benefiting a closed group of scientists.
What became clear was that early career researchers are frustrated by the lack of formal recognition for reviewing. With so many pressures to secure grant funding and publish research, there is a risk reviewing will become marginalised and inevitably inconsistent and shoddy.
Reviewing is currently not included in the Research Excellence Framework (REF) in the UK (the new system for the allocation of funding to higher education institutes). Members of the VoYS network decided to do something about this and wrote an open letter to Sir Alan Langlands, the Chief Executive of the Higher Education Funding Council of England, calling for formal recognition of reviewing in the REF. In the letter, the early career researchers told Sir Alan: “Recognising reviewing as part of the REF would ensure that it is prioritised and safeguarded by university departments, [...] and approached professionally and seriously, enabling senior researchers to spend time mentoring early career researchers like ourselves in these activities.” A copy of their letter can be found on the Sense About Science website.
Dr Irene Hames (l)
Their call was supported by high profile editors and experts in the field including Dr Irene Hames, Editorial Consultant and author of Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals who spoke at our discussion on peer review at ESOF 2012 to mark the launch of our peer-review guide. Dr Hames said in support of the early career researchers’ open letter: “Peer reviewing involves a lot of time and effort by researchers [...] There is, however, currently no formal recognition of peer reviewing as a professional activity. Better recognition would be especially important for early career researchers, to demonstrate not only their contribution to this important activity, but their recognition as experts in their research areas.”
Peer review: the nuts and bolts is available to download from the Sense About Science website. For hard copies, please send requests to publications@senseaboutscience.org.
Loading ...
