Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Linking authorship and reviewing activity in science publishing


Clauss, Marcus (2016). Linking authorship and reviewing activity in science publishing. Journal of Brief Ideas:online.

Abstract

Everybody wants to publish, but peers for review are increasingly hard to find. Online systems that help journal editors handle submissions indicate how many invitations for review a person accepted or declined. Linking this information automatically to the names of the first and last author of any submission to a specific journal, and displaying it during the online submission process, would make submitters aware of their own reviewing history with this journal, and make them aware that the journal editor will also be automatically informed about this. Editors might justifiably be less inclined to allow a manuscript into review if the authors have a history of declining review invitations. Additionally, offering both authors and editors a ranking opportunity in the online system as commonplace with any online business ('how do you rate this review?' - corrected for the type of decision that is rated) would make submitters aware of their reviewing performance, as well as editors - at the time when submitters might want to make the best of impressions with editors, i.e. during submission of their own manuscript. Rather than rewarding reviewing activity by quantifying it in metrics, such practice might enhance effort put into peer review.

Abstract

Everybody wants to publish, but peers for review are increasingly hard to find. Online systems that help journal editors handle submissions indicate how many invitations for review a person accepted or declined. Linking this information automatically to the names of the first and last author of any submission to a specific journal, and displaying it during the online submission process, would make submitters aware of their own reviewing history with this journal, and make them aware that the journal editor will also be automatically informed about this. Editors might justifiably be less inclined to allow a manuscript into review if the authors have a history of declining review invitations. Additionally, offering both authors and editors a ranking opportunity in the online system as commonplace with any online business ('how do you rate this review?' - corrected for the type of decision that is rated) would make submitters aware of their reviewing performance, as well as editors - at the time when submitters might want to make the best of impressions with editors, i.e. during submission of their own manuscript. Rather than rewarding reviewing activity by quantifying it in metrics, such practice might enhance effort put into peer review.

Statistics

Altmetrics

Downloads

12 downloads since deposited on 31 Aug 2016
6 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, not refereed, further contribution
Communities & Collections:05 Vetsuisse Faculty > Veterinary Clinic > Department of Small Animals
Dewey Decimal Classification:570 Life sciences; biology
630 Agriculture
Language:English
Date:15 August 2016
Deposited On:31 Aug 2016 13:19
Last Modified:08 Dec 2017 20:13
Publisher:CERN Data Centre
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.60164
Official URL:http://beta.briefideas.org/ideas/0f76310f95a7526852a8ca39fceb4f8e

Download

Download PDF  'Linking authorship and reviewing activity in science publishing'.
Preview
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 77kB
View at publisher
Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)