Archive | Journals RSS for this section

Wiley pilots transferable peer review

PRP_flowchart_2509wide

Quiz time! How long would you estimate it takes for a paper to go through peer review?

On average, it takes 80 days per paper or 1,920 hours (according to an article by M. Ware in Publishing Research Consortium). That’s a lot of time spent waiting for a decision. In hopes to alievating this pain point, Wiley is piloting “transferable peer review.” As outlined in a  recent Wiley Exchanges article, this new system will cut down on review time.

Here are a few of the main points:

  • The system allows you the option to preserve and transfer initial peer review, should you receive a decision to reject from one journal and wish to request transfer to another.
  • The review is now able to travel with the article on its route to publication. By reducing the number of reviews in the universe, the aim is to reduce the burden on reviewers, while helping editors to make faster decisions and increase the publication speed.

There are initiatives to take some journals out of the peer review process altogether and detach reviewer reports from publication in a specific journal. Many authors know which journals they would prefer to publish and would rather not be told which journal they should submit. Many authors do not want undesirable journals to bid for publication of their paper.

The system is currently been piloted among nine of our high impact neuroscience titles  and will run for about six months. The results will be used to develop a new process. 

For more information, check out the full article visit the Wiley Exchanges page here.

You can subscribe to Wiley Exchanges updates via email or RSS feed or follow Exchanges on Twitter.

Link: Bad reviews: The perils of modern peer reviews

Image

We’ve tackled the topics of open access, as it relates, funding. But we’ve recently come across an interesting spin on the familiar topics in Significance Magazine‘s “Bad reviews: The perils of modern peer review” from contributor Carlos Alberto Gómez Grajales.

In the article, Grajales talks about the shifting process through which scientific publications place increased emphasis on electronic formats to dispense its content with a reduced or non-existent cost to readers.

Grajales highlights a project by John Bohannon (Harvard Universitybased biologist and science journalist) where he distributed fake scientific articles to online journals in order to test the effectiveness of the review process. “Out of 304 submissions made throughout a period of six months, 157 of the journals (about half) had accepted the paper, 98 rejected it. Of the 49 journals that remain, 29 appeared to be no longer operative and 20 were still evaluating the merit of the text.” Read the hoax in full in Sciences Oct 4 Issue or online.

One of the complications with the pay-to-publish model lies in the possibility of an ineffective review processes. This is why reviews are important, because we need to criticize each other, not for confronting, nor for glory, but because a fine review is a nice intellectual conversation in which both parties learn from each other.”One journal that approved the fake article, was ready to charge $3,100 USD for publication fees. 

Sound off: Has open access changed how you publish? What’s your review of Grajales conclusions and Bohannon’s findings?

Richard Threlfall’s tips on revising your manuscript

ChemistryViews‘ series on submitting manuscripts continues with “After Submission and Handling Referee Comments: Manuscript Accepted or Revision Requested.”

In this post, Richard Threlfall writes about how to revise your manuscript after receiving reviewers’ comments.  This task can be the most difficult but considering suggestions from reviewers and “referees” is important for the publishing process. 

Here are some of Threlfall’s major points to consider:

  • Think about the reviewer’s comments in their broadest sense and try not to just alter the few things that they might have specifically mentioned.
  • If you believe that a suggestion is unreasonable or is not scientifically accurate, then say so.
  • Electronically highlight all the changes that you.
  • Thoroughly describe all the changes in a cover letter.

Threlfall states, “Marking the changes and explaining them clearly in your letter shows you are genuinely interested in improving your work and not trying to do just the minimum to get it published.”

Above all, it is important to examine a reviewer’s recommendations and address them as impartially as possible.

You can read Threlfall’s previous article about how to handle “unfair reviews” and what to do when your manuscript is rejected.

Wiley Exchanges: Interview with Adela Rauchova, on open access

Recently, we’ve been selecting relevant articles from Wiley Exchanges articles to share with our readers.

This week read an interview with Adela Rauchova, open access publication assistant at the University of Edinburgh.  This new role is part of a RCUK-funded project. She talks the purpose of the role, her day-to-day tasks, and the key challenges she faces.  At the end, she shares best practices like informing academics of key policies and the main philosophy of Open Access.

Related Links:

The evolution of digital publishing: PDFs, HTML, and “smart-content”

Gary Spencer, Associate Director of Product Management in Wiley’s Global Research Division, created a video presentation about the evolution of digital publishing.  Even though researchers used PDFs most of the time, there are many different ways to view and access journal articles.  From PDFs and HTML to tablet apps and “smart-articles,” scholarly publishing and researchers have to adapt to these developments. 

View the video from Gary Spencer below and let us know what you think.  Are you devoted to print articles or do you find electronic versions easier to navigate?  What advancements would you like to see in digital publishing?

For more information on this topic, click here to read the full article on Wiley Exchanges.

Some things to know about open access

Open Access is a popular topic in the publishing world. We will be doing a series of posts on this topic in the coming months.

Today’s post will be some general information about open access, including key terms and some links.

What do we mean by open access?

“By ‘open access’ to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.”

– Budapest Open Access Initiative

What are the types of open access?

Gold: “pay to publish”

  • article is freely accessible online immediately after publishing
  • authors, funders, or institutions pay an article publication charge

Green: “self-archiving”

  • article deposited in institution or subject repository by the author

What are some benefits of open access?

  • Efficiency and speed: articles published via open access are peer reviewed. Decisions are made swiftly and there is often no need for time consuming formatting changes.
  • Visibility: open access articles appear in a variety of Wiley search platforms and are easily accessible to readers.
  • Compliance with open access mandates: our journals allow authors to retain copyrights and publish under Creative Commons License, thus adhering with various mandates.

Where can you get more information on open access? 

  • Results of our 2013 author survey on open access 
  • Wiley Open Access : This site has a plethora of information including open access policies, a browsing tool for open access journals, and an informative FAQ page. There is also a section of information specifically for societies, authors, or institution & funders.
  • @WileyExchanges: a Twitter-feed that complies relevant links for authors, including Open Access articles and tips, SEO guidelines, some great links to open access information and other .

Experience with Open Access? Take our poll and read survey results

Our colleagues at Wiley Exchanges surveyed authors about their experiences and opinions on Open Access.   You can view these results through this interactive visualization tool. The tool allows you to easily manipulate the charts to view results by a variety of groupings including geographic region, age group, and subject area.

If you published an open access article in the past 3 years, take this short poll.

For more interesting links on open access, check out @WileyExchanges. You can also join the conversation. They will be tweeting all week with the hashtag #OAWeek.