Annual Meeting Report

Improving Peer Review One Case Study at a Time

Abstract

MODERATOR: Tamara Hanna American Chemical Society Washington, DC SPEAKERS: Sonja Krane American Chemical Society Washington, DC Matthew Hayes Clarivate Analytics Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Erika Pastrana Springer Nature New York, New York REPORTER: Samantha Bruno Fuller American Association for the Advancement of Science Washington, DC Peer review is a constantly evolving and vital aspect of scientific publication. Journals rely on editors and reviewers to volunteer their time to ensure that quality, well-vetted research is published. With such a large ask, the industry is regularly improving upon and inventing new tools to aid editors and reviewers. This session, “Improving Peer Review One Case Study at a Time,” highlights three case studies that show promising innovation that is working to reach this goal. Matthew Hayes, Director of Publons, began the session discussing transparent peer review, which allows for more visibility of the process and recognition of reviewers. Due to the growing interest amongst reviewers and publishers to adopt this type of model, a transparent peer review model in partnership with ScholarOne was created, which fits within the established workflows and systems of the journal. Hayes also highlighted that the difference between “transparent” and “open” peer review is that the transparent model allows reviewers to choose to have their review published but remain anonymous. With this model, the submission system collects peer review content, along with author and reviewer options, and sends it to Publons. The publisher sends a feed of the accepted articles to Publons, which then creates the article and peer reivew pages, […]

The full article is for members only

Log In to View Full Article