Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities

Abstract Background Open peer review practices are increasing in medicine and life sciences, but in social sciences and humanities (SSH) they are still rare. We aimed to map out how editors of respected SSH journals perceive open peer review, how they balance policy, ethics, and pragmatism in the re...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Hans-Joachim Backe
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	BMC 2021
Materias:	Ethics Journalology Open Science Peer review Social sciences and humanities General Works A
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/56ce0ae2d3554fc4a11a84b96f89ff8a
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:56ce0ae2d3554fc4a11a84b96f89ff8a
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:56ce0ae2d3554fc4a11a84b96f89ff8a2021-11-21T12:29:44ZTransparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities10.1186/s41073-021-00116-42058-8615https://doaj.org/article/56ce0ae2d3554fc4a11a84b96f89ff8a2021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00116-4https://doaj.org/toc/2058-8615Abstract Background Open peer review practices are increasing in medicine and life sciences, but in social sciences and humanities (SSH) they are still rare. We aimed to map out how editors of respected SSH journals perceive open peer review, how they balance policy, ethics, and pragmatism in the review processes they oversee, and how they view their own power in the process. Methods We conducted 12 pre-registered semi-structured interviews with editors of respected SSH journals. Interviews consisted of 21 questions and lasted an average of 67 min. Interviews were transcribed, descriptively coded, and organized into code families. Results SSH editors saw anonymized peer review benefits to outweigh those of open peer review. They considered anonymized peer review the “gold standard” that authors and editors are expected to follow to respect institutional policies; moreover, anonymized review was also perceived as ethically superior due to the protection it provides, and more pragmatic due to eased seeking of reviewers. Finally, editors acknowledged their power in the publication process and reported strategies for keeping their work as unbiased as possible. Conclusions Editors of SSH journals preferred the benefits of anonymized peer review over open peer and acknowledged the power they hold in the publication process during which authors are almost completely disclosed to editorial bodies. We recommend journals to communicate the transparency elements of their manuscript review processes by listing all bodies who contributed to the decision on every review stage.Veli-Matti KarhulahtiHans-Joachim BackeBMCarticleEthicsJournalologyOpen SciencePeer reviewSocial sciences and humanitiesGeneral WorksAENResearch Integrity and Peer Review, Vol 6, Iss 1, Pp 1-14 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Ethics Journalology Open Science Peer review Social sciences and humanities General Works A
spellingShingle	Ethics Journalology Open Science Peer review Social sciences and humanities General Works A Veli-Matti Karhulahti Hans-Joachim Backe Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities
description	Abstract Background Open peer review practices are increasing in medicine and life sciences, but in social sciences and humanities (SSH) they are still rare. We aimed to map out how editors of respected SSH journals perceive open peer review, how they balance policy, ethics, and pragmatism in the review processes they oversee, and how they view their own power in the process. Methods We conducted 12 pre-registered semi-structured interviews with editors of respected SSH journals. Interviews consisted of 21 questions and lasted an average of 67 min. Interviews were transcribed, descriptively coded, and organized into code families. Results SSH editors saw anonymized peer review benefits to outweigh those of open peer review. They considered anonymized peer review the “gold standard” that authors and editors are expected to follow to respect institutional policies; moreover, anonymized review was also perceived as ethically superior due to the protection it provides, and more pragmatic due to eased seeking of reviewers. Finally, editors acknowledged their power in the publication process and reported strategies for keeping their work as unbiased as possible. Conclusions Editors of SSH journals preferred the benefits of anonymized peer review over open peer and acknowledged the power they hold in the publication process during which authors are almost completely disclosed to editorial bodies. We recommend journals to communicate the transparency elements of their manuscript review processes by listing all bodies who contributed to the decision on every review stage.
format	article
author	Veli-Matti Karhulahti Hans-Joachim Backe
author_facet	Veli-Matti Karhulahti Hans-Joachim Backe
author_sort	Veli-Matti Karhulahti
title	Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities
title_short	Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities
title_full	Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities
title_fullStr	Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities
title_full_unstemmed	Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities
title_sort	transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities
publisher	BMC
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/56ce0ae2d3554fc4a11a84b96f89ff8a
work_keys_str_mv	AT velimattikarhulahti transparencyofpeerreviewasemistructuredinterviewstudywithchiefeditorsfromsocialsciencesandhumanities AT hansjoachimbacke transparencyofpeerreviewasemistructuredinterviewstudywithchiefeditorsfromsocialsciencesandhumanities
_version_	1718418943582928896

Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities

Ejemplares similares