Incentives that Drive the Editorial Peer Review process
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18060/27697Keywords:
Authorship, Editors, Editorial Peer Review, Evidence Based Practice, Professionalism, Publishing, MotivationAbstract
Objectives:
To offer insights for authors and prospective authors on the editorial peer review process.
Methods:
Case series. Observations from service as an associate editor at four peer reviewed journals, a peer reviewer of at least 60 manuscripts, and author of over 70 peer reviewed journal articles.
Results:
Editors, peer reviewers, and authors are all volunteers who assure the continued building of our evidence base. While they share some of the same values and incentives, their roles sometimes conflict due to divergent incentives. These divergences can often lead to misunderstandings by authors or prospective authors. By understanding these different incentives, authors can better appreciate feedback from editorial peer reviewers and editors.
Conclusion:
Convergent and divergent incentives can either strengthen or disrupt the editorial peer review process. Through a better understanding of this network of incentives, authors can function more effectively in the editorial peer review process.
References
Mahmić-Kaknjo M, Utrobičić A, Marušić A. Motivations for performing scholarly prepublication peer review: A scoping review. Account Res. 2021;28(5):297-329. doi:10.1080/08989621.2020.1822170
Gerwing TG, Allen Gerwing AM, Avery-Gomm S, Choi CY, Clements JC, Rash JA. Quantifying professionalism in peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020;5:9. Published 2020 Jul 24. doi:10.1186/s41073-020-00096-x
Ellwanger JH, Chies JAB. We need to talk about peer-review-Experienced reviewers are not endangered species, but they need motivation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;125:201-205. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.02.001
Bernstein J. Free for service: the inadequate incentives for quality peer review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(10):3093-3097. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3216-z
Goodman S. The scholarly skill almost no one is teaching. Chronicle of Higher Education 2022 Nov 11. Available from: <https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-scholarly-skill-almost-no-one-is-teaching>.
Eldredge J. JAMA journal reviews: analysis and master index 1992-1996. Medical Library Association News. 1997 Feb; (293):22-4.
Eldredge J. Characteristics of peer reviewed clinical medicine journals. Med Ref Serv Q. 1999;18(2):13-26. doi:10.1300/J115v18n02_02
West JD, Bergstrom CT. Misinformation in and about science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(15):e1912444117. doi:10.1073/pnas.1912444117
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Jonathan Eldredge
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All works in Hypothesis are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Authors own copyright of their articles appearing in Hypothesis. Readers may copy articles without permission of the copyright owner(s), as long as the author(s) and the Medical Library Association are acknowledged in the copy, and the copy is used for educational, not-for-profit purposes. For any other use of articles, please contact the copyright owner(s).
