Preview

Science Editor and Publisher

Advanced search

Use of peer reviewing indicators for planning the work of the editorial office of a scientific edition (on the example of a biological journal)

https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-22-17

Abstract

The peer review process is an extremely important and time-consuming step in preparing a manuscript for publication. It often takes longer than all other stages of article processing. Due to the complexity of peer reviewing, it becomes necessary to analyze it and determine the key points that you should pay attention to when planning the work of the editorial office. In this study, the authors used data obtained in the process of work with reviewers of the journals “Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 16. Biologiya” and “Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin” in 2017–2021, as well as information on articles received by the editorial office in the same period time. The sample of peer reviewers consisted of 319 specialists from various fields of biology and related disciplines. The results of the analysis showed that the average time spent on the primary review was about 11 days, and the average time during which experts respond to the invitation was about 2 days. Reviews received by the editors over five years, on average, contain a little less than 3 000 characters, the volume of reviews does not correlate with the timing of the reviews and their quality. In recent years, the editorial office has managed to reduce the proportion of formal uninformative reviews to 6 %. Both women and men, employees of both universities and research institutes, scientists with candidate and doctoral degrees are equally involved in the work on articles. The important role of reviewers in improving the article and at the same time insufficient encouragement of this important work are emphasized. The results obtained can be useful to the editors of scientific journals when they plan the stages of reviewing articles.

About the Authors

G. V. Morgunova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation

Galina V. Morgunova - Cand. Sci. (Biol.), Managing Editor of Editorial Board of the journals “Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 16. Biologiya” and “Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin”, Leading Researcher of Evolutionary Cytogerontological Sector, School of Biology, Lomonosov Moscow State University.

Moscow.



A. N. Khokhlov
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation

Alexander N. Khokhlov - Dr. Sci. (Biol.), Associate Editor-in-Chief of the journals “Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 16. Biologiya” and “Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin”, Head of Evolutionary Cytogerontological Sector, School of Biology, Lomonosov Moscow State University.

Moscow.



References

1. Spier R. The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology. 2002;20(8):357–358. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6

2. Farrell P. R., Magida Farrell L., Farrell M. K. Ancient texts to PubMed: a brief history of the peer-review process. Journal of Perinatology. 2017;37(1):13–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.209

3. Tumin D., Tobias J. D. The peer review process. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia. 2019;13(Suppl 1):S52. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_544_18

4. Jana S. A history and development of peer-review process. Annals of Library and Information Studies. 2019;66(4):152–162.

5. Тихонова Е. В., Раицкая Л. К. Рецензирование как инструмент обеспечения эффективной научной коммуникации: традиции и инновации. Научный редактор и издатель. 2021;6(1):6–17. https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-6-17

6. Mrowinski M. J., Fronczak A., Fronczak P., Nedic O., Ausloos M. Review time in peer review: Quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows. Scientometrics. 2016;107(1):271–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1871-z

7. Kirpichnikov M. P., Morgunova G.V., Khokhlov A. N. Our journal–2020: what and how we publish. Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin. 2020;75(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0096392520010034

8. Morgunova G.V., Khokhlov A. N. 75 Years of the journal Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta and 45 years of its biological series. Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin. 2022;77(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0096392522010023

9. Huisman J., Smits J. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):633–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5

10. Большаков Д. Ю. Опыт привлечения молодых ученых в качестве рецензентов в научно-технический журнал. Научный редактор и издатель. 2020;5(1):16–21. https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2020-1-16-21

11. Большаков Д. Ю. Аналитика редакционно-издательских процессов научного журнала. Научный редактор и издатель. 2020;5(2):102–112. https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2020-2-102-112

12. Большаков Д. Ю. Стресс-тестирование научного журнала. Научный редактор и издатель. 2021;6(1):18–27. https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-18-27

13. Arns M. Open access is tiring out peer reviewers. Nature. 2014;515(7528):467. https://doi.org/10.1038/515467a

14. Гуреев В. Н., Мазов Н. А. Роль и значимость рецензирования в отечественной и иностранной научной периодике в информационно-библиотечной области: сравнительный анализ. Научный редактор и издатель. 2021;6(2):93–103. https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-21-03

15. Khokhlov A. N. How scientometrics became the most important science for researchers of all specialties. Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin. 2020;75(4):159–163. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0096392520040057

16. Khokhlov A. N., Morgunova G.V. Is it worth teaching biology students the basics of scientometrics and the instructions for the design of scientific articles, and if so, why? Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin. 2021;76(3):77–82. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0096392521030081

17. Gilbert J. R., Williams E. S., Lundberg G. D. Is there gender bias in JAMA’s peer review process? Journal of the American Medical Association. 1994;272(2):139–142. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520020065018

18. Helmer M., Schottdorf M., Neef A., Battaglia D. Gender bias in scholarly peer review. Elife. 2017;6:e21718. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718

19. Squazzoni F., Bravo G., Farjam M., Marusic A., Mehmani B., Willis M., Birukou A., Dondio P., Grimaldo F. Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals. Science Advances. 2021;7(2):eabd0299. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd0299


Review

For citations:


Morgunova G.V., Khokhlov A.N. Use of peer reviewing indicators for planning the work of the editorial office of a scientific edition (on the example of a biological journal). Science Editor and Publisher. 2022;7(1):60-69. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-22-17

Views: 349


ISSN 2542-0267 (Print)
ISSN 2541-8122 (Online)