ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesResearch IntegrityTowards a more transparent and collaborative review process – Crosstalk (Milka Kostic | September 2017)

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Towards a more transparent and collaborative review process – Crosstalk (Milka Kostic | September 2017)

Published/Released on September 11, 2017 | Posted by Admin on November 25, 2017 / , , ,
 


View full details | Go to resource


Transparency in peer review is the theme of Peer Review Week 2017, which starts today. Cell Press is taking part in this week’s activities by highlighting some of the things we’ve been doing to increase the transparency in peer review for our authors, reviewers, and readers.

Peer review is collaboration. Although the traditional peer review process may seem rigid and linear—with authors submitting a paper, editors inviting reviewers, reviewers submitting the comments, and editors making a decision—in practice, Cell Press editors often engage in extensive discussions with reviewers after we’ve received all the comments. This helps us understand better where reviewers are coming from, and formulate the most appropriate course of revisions for the authors. Reviewer cross-consultation has been an informal feature of our approach to peer review for some time now.

Several years ago, we decided to start experimenting with making the collaborative peer review more structured and systematic. The first round of innovation in this area took place in 2014, and we’ve continued to build from those early results, which indicated that making the peer review process more collaborative has benefits and values for everyone involved in and, ultimately, the published science.

Read the rest of this discussion piece



Resources Menu

Research Integrity


Human Research Ethics