Current Awareness-E
No.487 2024.09.19
E2731
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
British Physical Society Publishing Report on Peer Review (2024)
Kei Murase, Domestic Materials Section, Collections and Bibliography Department
Introduction
IOP Publishing (IOP), the publishing division of the Institute of Physics (IOP), publishes over 100 academic journals covering a wide range of physics fields. On May 14, 2024, IOPP published a report titled “State of peer review 2024” (hereinafter the “Report”), which surveyed the physicist community’s opinions on the current state of peer review. This article aims to provide an overview of the report.
Peer review is an important system for ensuring academic progress and honesty, but in recent years, issues have surfaced about its costs and fairness, making it a focal point in the distribution of scholarly information (see CA1961, CA2001, CA2048). It is believed that these circumstances are the background to IOPP’s decision to conduct a follow-up survey to a similar one in 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “previous survey”).
Survey method
The survey was conducted in March 2024, and responses were received from 3,046 physics researchers from 105 countries. The survey items were broadly divided into 1) the volume of peer review requests, 2) bias in the peer review process, 3) preferred peer review methods, 4) motivation for undertaking peer reviews, and 5) the impact of generative AI on peer review. Below, we will focus on 1 and 4, which were the most frequently described, and introduce the keynote of the analysis results.
● Volume of peer review requests
Regarding changes in the volume of peer review requests over the past three years, about half of all respondents said it had increased (11.5% said it had decreased). As shown below, there was a tendency for responses regarding the burden of peer review to differ depending on the country in which the respondents were based, with differences noted between Europe and other regions, particularly China and India. This is a trend consistent with the previous survey.
- The proportion of respondents who receive three or more peer review requests per month is 24% in Europe, compared with 19% in other regions, with China (15%) and India (16%) the lowest.
- The percentage of people in China (6%) and India (7%) who said they received too many peer review requests compared to the time they had available to review them was low, while 23% of people in other countries said the same.
On the other hand, there were some changes observed since the previous survey.
- The percentage of all respondents who thought they received too many peer review requests decreased from the previous survey (26% to 16%).
- 77% of respondents from low-income countries (World Bank income classification) said they had seen an increase in peer review requests over the past three years, a significantly higher proportion than respondents from other income classifications.
In its conclusion, the report suggests that these changes may reflect IOPP’s recent efforts to diversify its reviewer pool.
Motivation for undertaking peer review
As in the previous survey, respondents ranked “interest in the paper” as the most important motivator for accepting a peer review (overall average 3.89 out of 5, same as in parentheses below), and “money or other benefits” as the least important (2.22). As for rewards for reviewing, many respondents placed importance on “feedback on the final decision on the paper” (3.67) and “feedback on the quality of the review opinions” (3.65).
On the other hand, in responses to questions about peer review compensation, the importance of supporting peer reviewers has increased significantly since the previous survey (issuing certificates of completion of peer review training programs: 2.68 → 3.11, etc.). In responses to questions about measures to improve the peer review experience, “improving peer review training” was the only item whose importance increased significantly from the previous survey. These results can be said to support the direction of editorial support for peer reviewers. In fact, in the conclusion of the report, it suggests the need for further measures to improve the peer reviewer experience.
Conclusion
The report’s analysis findings can be interpreted as suggesting the need to include researchers from China and India, who are the driving force behind the increase in the number of papers published worldwide, as peer reviewers, and to strengthen support for reviewers, including these new entrants.
In order to address the shortage of peer reviewers, efforts are being made to increase incentives for peer review, such as by rewarding peer reviews. In parallel with this movement, it will be interesting to see whether IOPP’s future support measures for peer reviewers will be able to mobilize potential reviewers who are attracted to such incentives but have not yet been included, leading to the formation of an inclusive and rich peer reviewer community.
Ref：
“IOP Publishing report reveals peer review capacity not used to its full potential”. IOPP. 2024-05-14.
https://ioppublishing.org/news/iop-publishing-report-reveals-peer-review-capacity-not-used-to-its-full-potential/
“State of peer review 2024”. IOPP.
https://ioppublishing.org/state-of-peer-review-2024/
“Peer Review Survey Insights 2020”. IOPP.
https://ioppublishing.org/peer-review-survey-insights/
“4.1.2 Comparison of research activities by country”. Science and Technology Indicators 2023. National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, 2024.
https://www.nistep.go.jp/sti_indicator/2023/RM328_42.html
Wataru Matsuno. Peer review at a crossroads and Publons stepping into the changes. Current Awareness. 2019, (341), CA1961, p. 15-19.
https://doi.org/10.11501/11359094
Sato, S. The trend towards open peer review: background, scope, and pros and cons. Current Awareness. 2021, (348), CA2001, p. 20-25.
https://doi.org/10.11501/11688293
Sho Sato. Should peer review be free? Current Awareness. 2023, (357), CA2048, p. 14-18.
Ensure the quality and integrity of the peer review process in the field of physics.
British Physical Society Publishing Report on Peer Review (2024)
The Institute of Physics (IOP) Publishing, a leading academic publisher, has recently released a report titled “State of Peer Review 2024”, which sheds light on the current state of peer review in the physics community. This report is a follow-up to a similar survey conducted in 2020 and provides valuable insights into the opinions of physicists on the peer review process.
Importance of Peer Review
Peer review is an essential system for ensuring academic progress and honesty in scientific research. However, in recent years, concerns have been raised about the costs and fairness of the peer review process, making it a focal point in the distribution of scholarly information.
Survey Method
The survey was conducted in March 2024, and responses were received from 3,046 physics researchers from 105 countries. The survey items were broadly divided into five categories: the volume of peer review requests, bias in the peer review process, preferred peer review methods, motivation for undertaking peer reviews, and the impact of generative AI on peer review.
Volume of Peer Review Requests
The report highlights that about half of all respondents said that the volume of peer review requests had increased over the past three years. Interestingly, there was a tendency for responses regarding the burden of peer review to differ depending on the country in which the respondents were based, with differences noted between Europe and other regions, particularly China and India.
Motivation for Undertaking Peer Review
Respondents ranked “interest in the paper” as the most important motivator for accepting a peer review, followed by “feedback on the final decision on the paper” and “feedback on the quality of the review opinions”. The report suggests that supporting peer reviewers is crucial, and measures such as issuing certificates of completion of peer review training programs can increase the importance of peer review compensation.
Conclusion
The report’s findings suggest the need to include researchers from China and India, who are driving the increase in the number of papers published worldwide, as peer reviewers, and to strengthen support for reviewers, including these new entrants. Efforts to increase incentives for peer review, such as rewarding peer reviews, can help address the shortage of peer reviewers. The report concludes that further measures are needed to improve the peer reviewer experience and
What are the key factors influencing the quality and integrity of the peer review process in physics according to recent surveys?
Current Awareness-E: Ensuring the Quality and Integrity of the Peer Review Process in Physics
E2731
British Physical Society Publishing Report on Peer Review (2024)
The Institute of Physics (IOP) Publishing, the publishing division of the Institute of Physics, recently released a report titled “State of Peer Review 2024,” which surveyed the opinions of the physicist community on the current state of peer review. This article provides an overview of the report, highlighting the key findings and takeaways.
Introduction
Peer review is a crucial system for ensuring academic progress and honesty in the field of physics. However, in recent years, concerns have been raised about the costs and fairness of the peer review process, making it a focal point in the distribution of scholarly information. The IOP Publishing report aims to provide insights into the current state of peer review and identify areas for improvement.
Survey Method
The survey was conducted in March 2024 and received responses from 3,046 physics researchers from 105 countries. The survey items were broadly divided into five categories: the volume of peer review requests, bias in the peer review process, preferred peer review methods, motivation for undertaking peer reviews, and the impact of generative AI on peer review.
Volume of Peer Review Requests
The survey found that about half of all respondents reported an increase in the volume of peer review requests over the past three years. However, there were significant differences in the responses depending on the country in which the respondents were based. Respondents from Europe were more likely to report a high volume of peer review requests compared to those from other regions, particularly China and India. This trend is consistent with the previous survey conducted in 2020.
Motivation for Undertaking Peer Review
The survey found that respondents ranked “interest in the paper” as the most important motivator for accepting a peer review, followed by “feedback on the final decision on the paper” and “feedback on the quality of the review opinions.” In contrast, “money or other benefits” was ranked as the least important motivator.
Conclusion
The report suggests that the changes observed in the volume of peer review requests and motivation for undertaking peer reviews may reflect IOP Publishing’s recent efforts to diversify its reviewer pool. The report highlights the importance of supporting peer reviewers and providing them with adequate feedback and recognition for their contributions.
Ensuring the Quality and Integrity of the Peer Review Process
The report’s findings underscore the need for ensuring the quality and integrity of the peer review process in the field of physics. To achieve this, it is essential to:
- Diversify the reviewer pool: Efforts should be made to diversify the reviewer pool to reduce the burden on certain groups of researchers and ensure that a diverse range of perspectives are represented.
- **Provide adequate feedback and recognition
