{"id":3141,"date":"2019-09-20T07:36:27","date_gmt":"2019-09-20T07:36:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey\/"},"modified":"2025-01-15T06:32:49","modified_gmt":"2025-01-15T06:32:49","slug":"quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey","title":{"rendered":"Quality and trust in peer review: An overview of Sense about Science 2019 survey"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; margin:0in 0in 8pt\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">To coincide with this year\u2019s Peer Review Week, <span class=\"MsoHyperlink\" style=\"color:#0563c1\"><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"><a href=\"https:\/\/senseaboutscience.org\/\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">Sense about Science<\/a><\/span><\/span>, an independent charity working to promote honesty and integrity in science, has released the results of its <span class=\"MsoHyperlink\" style=\"color:#0563c1\"><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"><a href=\"https:\/\/senseaboutscience.org\/activities\/peer-review-survey-2019\/\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">Peer Review Survey 2019<\/a><\/span><\/span>. The survey, conducted in partnership with Elsevier, comes a decade after the <span class=\"MsoHyperlink\" style=\"color:#0563c1\"><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"><a href=\"https:\/\/senseaboutscience.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Peer_Review_Survey.pdf\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">first survey<\/a><\/span><\/span> that analyzed similar themes.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; margin:0in 0in 8pt\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">The 2019 survey repeated some questions from the 2009 survey, but included several new ones, taking cognizance of the many developments in science and research in the past decade. More than 3,000 researchers across career stages and disciplines responded to the survey. Going beyond the aspects of process, satisfaction, challenges, and trends, the survey examined perspectives around peer review quality and trust. Incidentally, <span class=\"MsoHyperlink\" style=\"color:#0563c1\"><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"><a href=\"https:\/\/peerreviewweek.wordpress.com\/peer-review-2019\/\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">quality is the theme of this year\u2019s Peer Review Week<\/a><\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; margin:0in 0in 8pt\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">The survey provided compelling insights and also established important action points to secure the future of the system. One key takeaway was a firm validation of the need for the peer review system.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; margin:0in 0in 8pt\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">Here is a summary of the results and discussions that emerged from the survey.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">Overall results indicate that\u00a0researchers have faith in the peer review system. 75% said that they were satisfied with the process (compared with 69% in the 2009 survey).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">90% believe peer review improves the quality of research papers (similar to the 91% affirmation in the 2009 survey). An equally high percent (85%) felt that without peer review, there would be no control in scientific communication. In the words of Dr Amarachukwu Anyogu, microbiology lecturer at the University of Westminster, UK, \u201cThe process is beneficial for your blind spots: when it\u2019s your own research, you think you\u2019ve done an amazing job.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">The participants also sought to establish what constitutes peer review. 87% said that it is an assessment by at least two researchers, with or without support from an editorial team member.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">62% respondents shared that they trusted the output they assessed just a week before taking the survey. However, 37% were not sure they could put their trust in the output quality. The respondents talked about several factors that could be affecting trust and also shared ways to build trust among researchers and public alike. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"tab-stops:45.0pt 51.0pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">Factors affecting trust<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; margin:0in 0in 8pt\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">The researchers attributed the following factors for the low level of trust:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">Pressure to publish<\/span><\/b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">: The almost-dire need to publish in order to obtain grants and secure career progression is adversely affecting the quality of studies and therefore the papers.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">Low-quality peer review<\/span><\/b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">: There is a lack of clarity about the process too, such as inadequate transparency when it comes to the credentials and experience of the reviewer.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">New channels and research outputs<\/span><\/b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">:<b> <\/b>While new channels such as blogs and social media have helped increase the dissemination of science, researchers are skeptical about trusting this content as the owners of these channels typically have no affiliation with the content. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">Decreased focus on innovative or high-quality research<\/span><\/b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">:<b> <\/b>The growth of new scholarly communication channels, such as <span class=\"MsoHyperlink\" style=\"color:#0563c1\"><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.plos.org\/plosone\/\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">PLOS ONE<\/a><\/span><\/span> and <span class=\"MsoHyperlink\" style=\"color:#0563c1\"><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"><a href=\"https:\/\/f1000.com\/\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">F1000<\/a><\/span><\/span>, has resulted in a high acceptance rate for papers but has conversely led to much low-impact research now getting published.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">Growth of data, other material, and research integrity challenges<\/span><\/b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">:<b> <\/b>With the increasing call for <a href=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/open-peer-review-a-step-towards-open-science\/\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">open science<\/a>, which urges that research results and communication be clear and transparent, a large volume of literature is getting published. However, there is concern about the reproducibility of the results of many of these studies. Also, a single study can now be presented in multiple papers for each stage of the study, such as for method and data. This break-down into smaller articles, some researchers feel, can influence the final results.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">Unethical researcher (and reviewer) behavior, errors, and bias<\/span><\/b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">: Researchers can <a href=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/safeguard-your-manuscript-against-suspected-data-fabrication-and-image-duplication\/\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">fabricate or falsify data<\/a> to ensure results match their hypotheses. Also, they are often not aware of issues arising from <a href=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/conflicts-of-interest\/\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">conflicts of interest<\/a>. Reviewers too can be guilty of errors and bias. Errors can arise from the immense drive to publish, inexperience, researcher culture, or simply, human error. While <a href=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/7-common-types-of-academic-peer-review\/\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">blind reviews<\/a> aim to remove bias, some reviewers have taken advantage of loopholes in the system to submit bogus reviews.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; margin:0in 0in 8pt\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">Ways to build trust <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; margin:0in 0in 8pt\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">The respondents also suggested several measures to improve trust, among both researchers and the lay population.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">Introduce quality controls for data and supplementary materials<\/span><\/b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">: 76% said that data and supplementary materials shared in a study should be evaluated in some way. <span class=\"MsoHyperlink\" style=\"color:#0563c1\"><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/how-is-artificial-intelligence-propelling-science-and-research\/\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">To help already-burdened reviewers assess these materials, artificial intelligence (AI) could be a solution.<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">Provide clear signals to help assess research<\/span><\/b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">: Most researchers affirmed the following ways of assessing research outputs: citations (88%), indicators whether someone else had tried to reproduce the research (82%), and post-publication commentary (79%). A majority (77%) felt that a definite marker of assessing the research output is if the peer-reviewed article clearly states that it has been peer-reviewed.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">Increase transparency and control in delivery of content<\/span><\/b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">: A majority (71%) would like to know why a particular article had been recommended or displayed to them in a search result.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">Improve support and recognition for reviewers: <\/span><\/b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">66% said they would benefit from clearer guidance on reviewing criteria. Some ways in which they could be recognized for their work include: employer recognition of the time spent (45%), accreditation (34%), and acknowledgement, such as having their names published along with the article (28%).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">Understand the barriers facing the public<\/span><\/b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">: Only 38% believe the public understands the concept of a peer review. However, a bigger cause for concern (49%) is the misinterpretation of findings in media, discussions, and decision-making. However, many (43%) believe this could be deliberate, as some researchers and institutions fake or exaggerate the results of their studies for vested interests.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">Increase and improve communication around science<\/span><\/b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">:<b> <\/b>Some ways suggested to improve the public\u2019s understanding of research are: <span class=\"MsoHyperlink\" style=\"color:#0563c1\"><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/what-is-a-lay-summary\/\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">clearly explaining the findings and their implications in layman terms<\/a><\/span><\/span> (70%), empowering non-scientific readers to ask questions of authors (40%), explaining the peer review system (38%), and clearly marking research that has been peer reviewed (35%).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; margin:0in 0in 8pt\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">The study has clearly outlined pathways to take the peer review process forward. Sense about Science has begun working toward various goals and solutions and has invited all interested in research to join hands in the endeavor.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; margin:0in 0in 8pt\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">Related reading:<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span class=\"MsoHyperlink\" style=\"color:#0563c1\"><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/my-peer-review-wishlist\/\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">My peer review wishlist<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span class=\"MsoHyperlink\" style=\"color:#0563c1\"><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/peer-reviewers-tell-all-a-qa-with-expert-reviewers\/\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">Peer reviewers tell all: A Q&amp;A with expert reviewers<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span class=\"MsoHyperlink\" style=\"color:#0563c1\"><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/anyone-who-has-published-an-article-and-has-gone-through-a-peer-review-process-is-a-potential-reviewer\/\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">Anyone who has published an article and has gone through a peer review process is a potential reviewer<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span class=\"MsoHyperlink\" style=\"color:#0563c1\"><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/how-peer-review-is-perceived-by-authors-from-emerging-research-countries\/\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">How peer review is perceived by authors from emerging research countries<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; margin:0in 0in 8pt\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\">References:<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span class=\"MsoHyperlink\" style=\"color:#0563c1\"><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\"><a href=\"https:\/\/senseaboutscience.org\/activities\/peer-review-survey-2019\/\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">Peer Review Survey 2019 [About]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span class=\"MsoHyperlink\" style=\"color:#0563c1\"><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\"><a href=\"https:\/\/senseaboutscience.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/Quality-trust-peer-review.pdf\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">Quality, trust &amp; peer review: researchers\u2019 perspectives 10 years on [Survey results]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;\"><span style=\"font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"line-height:115%\"><span style=\"font-family:Calibri,sans-serif\"><span class=\"MsoHyperlink\" style=\"color:#0563c1\"><span style=\"text-decoration:underline\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif\"><a href=\"https:\/\/senseaboutscience.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Peer_Review_Survey.pdf\" style=\"color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline\">Peer Review Survey 2009: Full Report<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>To coincide with this year\u2019s Peer Review Week, Sense about Science, an independent charity working to promote honesty and integrity in science, has released the results of its Peer Review Survey 2019. The survey, conducted in partnership with Elsevier, comes a decade after the first survey that analyzed similar themes. The 2019 survey repeated some [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1532,"featured_media":33313,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2405],"tags":[1154,2644,1022],"new_categories":[],"new_tags":[],"series":[],"class_list":["post-3141","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-industry-trends","tag-global-science","tag-industry-updates","tag-peer-review-system"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v25.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Quality and trust in peer review: An overview of Sense about Science 2019 survey | Editage Insights<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Sense about Science 2019 survey reveals compelling insights and action points around quality and trust in peer review\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Quality and trust in peer review: An overview of Sense about Science 2019 survey | Editage Insights\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Sense about Science 2019 survey reveals compelling insights and action points around quality and trust in peer review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Editage Insights\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Editage\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-09-20T07:36:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-01-15T06:32:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/Sense-about-Sciences-survey-reveals-compelling-insights-and-action-points-around-quality-and-trust-i.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"656\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"336\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Irfan Syed\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@Editage\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Editage\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Irfan Syed\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Irfan Syed\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#\/schema\/person\/d24fc5c54f13dc3857cd23caa415f895\"},\"headline\":\"Quality and trust in peer review: An overview of Sense about Science 2019 survey\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-09-20T07:36:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-01-15T06:32:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey\"},\"wordCount\":1074,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/editage-insights-generic-banner_298.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Global Science\",\"Industry Updates\",\"peer review system\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Industry Trends\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey\",\"name\":\"Quality and trust in peer review: An overview of Sense about Science 2019 survey | Editage Insights\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/editage-insights-generic-banner_298.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-09-20T07:36:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-01-15T06:32:49+00:00\",\"description\":\"Sense about Science 2019 survey reveals compelling insights and action points around quality and trust in peer review\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/editage-insights-generic-banner_298.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/editage-insights-generic-banner_298.webp\",\"width\":656,\"height\":336},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Quality and trust in peer review: An overview of Sense about Science 2019 survey\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/\",\"name\":\"Editage Insights\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Editage Insights\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/editage-insights-logo-1-scaled.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/editage-insights-logo-1-scaled.webp\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":324,\"caption\":\"Editage Insights\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Editage\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Editage\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#\/schema\/person\/d24fc5c54f13dc3857cd23caa415f895\",\"name\":\"Irfan Syed\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/22c584d6b9c64ddfab321831eaa5a08fff0b68920a36ef02160eb074cf97f2d5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/22c584d6b9c64ddfab321831eaa5a08fff0b68920a36ef02160eb074cf97f2d5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Irfan Syed\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/irfan-syed\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Quality and trust in peer review: An overview of Sense about Science 2019 survey | Editage Insights","description":"Sense about Science 2019 survey reveals compelling insights and action points around quality and trust in peer review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Quality and trust in peer review: An overview of Sense about Science 2019 survey | Editage Insights","og_description":"Sense about Science 2019 survey reveals compelling insights and action points around quality and trust in peer review","og_url":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey","og_site_name":"Editage Insights","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Editage","article_published_time":"2019-09-20T07:36:27+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-01-15T06:32:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":656,"height":336,"url":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/Sense-about-Sciences-survey-reveals-compelling-insights-and-action-points-around-quality-and-trust-i.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Irfan Syed","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@Editage","twitter_site":"@Editage","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Irfan Syed","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey"},"author":{"name":"Irfan Syed","@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#\/schema\/person\/d24fc5c54f13dc3857cd23caa415f895"},"headline":"Quality and trust in peer review: An overview of Sense about Science 2019 survey","datePublished":"2019-09-20T07:36:27+00:00","dateModified":"2025-01-15T06:32:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey"},"wordCount":1074,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/editage-insights-generic-banner_298.webp","keywords":["Global Science","Industry Updates","peer review system"],"articleSection":["Industry Trends"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey","url":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey","name":"Quality and trust in peer review: An overview of Sense about Science 2019 survey | Editage Insights","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/editage-insights-generic-banner_298.webp","datePublished":"2019-09-20T07:36:27+00:00","dateModified":"2025-01-15T06:32:49+00:00","description":"Sense about Science 2019 survey reveals compelling insights and action points around quality and trust in peer review","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/editage-insights-generic-banner_298.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/editage-insights-generic-banner_298.webp","width":656,"height":336},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/quality-and-trust-in-peer-review-an-overview-of-sense-about-science-2019-survey#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Quality and trust in peer review: An overview of Sense about Science 2019 survey"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/","name":"Editage Insights","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#organization","name":"Editage Insights","url":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/editage-insights-logo-1-scaled.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/editage-insights-logo-1-scaled.webp","width":2560,"height":324,"caption":"Editage Insights"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Editage","https:\/\/x.com\/Editage"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#\/schema\/person\/d24fc5c54f13dc3857cd23caa415f895","name":"Irfan Syed","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/22c584d6b9c64ddfab321831eaa5a08fff0b68920a36ef02160eb074cf97f2d5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/22c584d6b9c64ddfab321831eaa5a08fff0b68920a36ef02160eb074cf97f2d5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Irfan Syed"},"url":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/irfan-syed"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3141","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1532"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3141"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3141\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/33313"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3141"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3141"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3141"},{"taxonomy":"new_categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/new_categories?post=3141"},{"taxonomy":"new_tags","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/new_tags?post=3141"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=3141"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}