{"id":3116,"date":"2019-09-16T11:30:16","date_gmt":"2019-09-16T11:30:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/how-peer-review-is-perceived-by-authors-from-emerging-research-countries\/"},"modified":"2025-01-15T06:32:51","modified_gmt":"2025-01-15T06:32:51","slug":"how-peer-review-is-perceived-by-authors-from-emerging-research-countries","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/how-peer-review-is-perceived-by-authors-from-emerging-research-countries","title":{"rendered":"How peer review is perceived by authors from emerging research countries"},"content":{"rendered":"

Peer review has attracted the lion\u2019s share of attention in recent discussions around whether the academic publishing system is broken. Does peer review still work the way it is meant to? Is it rigorous and objective enough as a gatekeeper of scholarly work? Does it help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts?<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Several studies and some large-scale global surveys focusing on peer review have been conducted over the past ten years in attempts to answer these questions, and these have shed light on how different aspects of peer review are perceived by authors and peer reviewers. The Editage Global Author Survey was one such initiative that gathered author perspectives on academic publishing from around the world, with greater representation from emerging research powerhouses such as China, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, and India than seen in most previous surveys (71% of the 6,903 survey respondents belonged to these countries).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Since this year\u2019s theme for Peer Review Week is \u201c<\/span><\/span><\/span>Quality in Peer Review<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>,\u201d we would like to share in some detail the author perspectives on peer review we gathered in our survey and how they varied based on region or discipline. Towards the end of this article, we list aspects of peer review that respondents wanted changes in and pose questions to initiate discussions on review quality.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Overview of Editage survey findings<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

In <\/span><\/span><\/span>the Editage survey report<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>, we had noted divided opinions on peer review. While most participants appeared satisfied with the overall quality of peer reviewer comments they had encountered, many reported difficulty in addressing peer reviewer comments and unhappiness with the some aspects of how peer reviews are conducted.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

When we asked respondents to rank eight problems in academic publishing according to the urgency with which they need to be addressed, peer review did not feature among the top five. However, it was <\/span><\/span><\/span>the second most commonly desired area of change<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>, after publication delay: poor peer review quality and processes featured in 24% of author responses to a question asking them what changes they would like to see in academic publishing.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Demographic variation in author opinions on peer review<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Authors were presented with the following positive statements about peer review and asked to rate their level of agreement on a five-point Likert scale (Strongly agree, Agree, Not sure, Disagree, Strongly disagree):<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Peer reviewer comments are generally insightful and help me improve my manuscript.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Peer reviewer comments are generally clear and easy to understand.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Peer reviewers usually provide their feedback in a constructive and actionable way.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Regional response patterns\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    Findings of previous similar surveys, such as the one by the Publishing Research Consortium and the follow-up Sense about Science study, had shown that respondents from non-Anglophone countries tended to have more positive views about peer review than those from Anglophone countries. Since our survey sample had a larger representation from non-Anglophone countries, we wanted to explore whether our sample showed similar geographical patterns. Interestingly, we found that they were different. Barring China, the non-Anglophone countries we examined showed patterns not greatly different from those observed for Anglophone countries.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    We analyzed responses from the seven most widely represented countries in the survey: China, Brazil, Japan, the USA, South Korea, India, and the UK. Here are some interesting patterns we found (see also the infographic below):\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n