MODERATOR:
Anna Jester
Director of Sales & Marketing
eJournalPress
Washington, DC
SPEAKERS:
Maria Kowalczuk
Biology Editor, Research Integrity
BioMed Central
London, United Kingdom
Dianne King-McGavin
Peer Review Manager
American Society for Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics
New Market, Maryland
Keith Gigliello
Senior Manager, Digital Publications
American Society of Hematology
Washington, DC
Glenn Landis
Editorial Director
American Society of Hematology
Washington, DC
Jim Gilden
Business Development Manager
PRE
Ventura, California
Kelly Hadsell
Managing Editor
KWF Editorial
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Melissa Junior
Associate Director, Journals
American Society for Microbiology
Washington, DC
Kerry Kroffe
Senior Editorial Manager
PLOS
San Francisco, California
Jennifer Lin
Crossref Director of Product Management, Dryad Board of Directors
Crossref
San Francisco, California
REPORTER:
Anna Jester
The Knowledge Exchange provides attendees the opportunity to discuss a rotating selection of topics with speakers and fellow attendees in an intentionally interactive format. Two 25-minute rounds of discussion keep the conversation flowing. Summaries from two of the conversations from the 2017 CSE Annual Meeting follow.
Journal Audits: What & Why
Within both groups of participants, nobody had tried—or was aware of—a process that would be similar to the round of audits that has been performed for BioMed Central journals, so this topic was new and generated a lot of interest.
The rationale, implementation, and potential interventions resulting from journal audits were discussed. The process requires time and resources but provides useful insights into journals, helps identify any pain points in journal processes, and finds practical ways to support editors.
The questions from the participants were mostly about the practicalities of running the audits, and what to do with any findings. This involves a fair amount of discussion with the in-house staff who are performing the audits and with the editors of the journals, which in itself is a useful learning experience for everyone involved.
Thanking Reviewers Monthly
Reviewers are essential to the peer review process, and publishers would be wise to acknowledge their key role in the process in some way. Reviewers want to know the status of the papers they review after publication, so publishers should inform them of the final decision on the paper. Reviewers are also highly responsive to thanks, no matter how small. A simple “thank you” is always appreciated. Some publishers include small tokens such as gift cards or lapel pins for top reviewers. A list of all reviewers can be published or posted online, but top reviewers should receive personalized notes.
Junior reviewers count too! Some journals include areas on their submissions sites for reviewers to include names of junior reviewers who have helped with a review. When this occurs, it is best to thank ALL who have contributed to the review.