Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers

• Published in: Learned publishing 2017-10, Vol.30 (4), p.269-277
• Main Authors: Rodríguez‐Bravo, Blanca, Nicholas, David, Herman, Eti, Boukacem‐Zeghmouri, Chérifa, Watkinson, Anthony, Xu, Jie, Abrizah, Abdullah, Świgoń, Marzena
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Academic careers; Humanities and Social Sciences; Library and information sciences; Literature reviews; Peer review; Researchers; Scholarly communication
• ISSN: 0953-1513; 1741-4857
• DOI: 10.1002/leap.1111

This paper presents selected findings from the first year of a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. Specifically, the aims of the paper are to show: (1) how much experience and knowledge ECRs had of peer review – both as authors and as reviewers; (2) what they felt the benefits were and what suggestions they had for improvement; (3) what they thought of open peer review (OPR); and (4) who they felt should organize peer review. Data were obtained from 116 science and social science ECRs, most of whom had published and were subject to in‐depth interviews conducted face‐to‐face, via Skype, or over the telephone. An extensive literature review was also conducted to provide a context and supplementary data for the findings. The main findings were that: (1) most ECRS are well informed about peer review and generally like the experience, largely because of the learning experiences obtained; (2) they like blind double‐peer review, but would like some improvements, especially with regards to reviewer quality; (3) most are uncomfortable with the idea of OPR; and (4) most would like publishers to continue organizing peer review because of their perceived independence.