Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0 - (Page 5)
Reviewers’ Information Pack
Supporting Peer-Review 2. ABOUT PEER-REVIEW
NEW ARTICLE TRANSFER SERVICE
Traditionally reviewers will, at one time or another, have been asked to review the same manuscript twice, even multiple times. Not only does this results in a waste of time and effort, it also demonstrates that some authors submit their research to journals which are simply not appropriate, either based on scope or impact. Our latest improvement to the manuscript submission process is a complimentary Article Transfer Service (ATS) designed to not only save authors’ valuable time and effort when submitting their research but to also reduce the risk of reviewers receiving the same manuscript twice. Visit: www.elsevier.com/reviewers to find out which areas this applies to.
Double Blind Review
Both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous. Advantages: Author anonymity prevents any reviewer bias based on, for example, an author’s country of origin or previous controversial work. Articles written by ‘prestigious’ or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than on the author’s reputation. Disadvantage: It is uncertain whether a paper can ever truly be ‘blind’ – especially in specialty ‘niche’ areas. Reviewers can often identify the author through the paper’s style, subject matter or through self-citation.
Open Review
Reviewer and author are known to each other. Advantage: Some scientists feel this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from drawing upon their own ‘agenda’ and encourage open, honest reviewing. Disadvantage: Others argue the opposite view. They see Open Review as a less honest process in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism. For example, junior reviewers may hesitate to criticize more esteemed authors for fear of damaging their prospects. Independent studies tend to support this.
2.5. Types of Peer-Review
There are, essentially, three varieties of peer-review:
Single Blind Review
The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing, and is, by far, the most common type. Advantage: Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions free from influence by the author. Disadvantages: Authors fear the risk that reviewers working in the same field may withhold submission of the review in order to delay publication, thereby giving the reviewer himself the opportunity to publish first. Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the author’s work.
www.elsevier.com/reviewers
5
http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers
http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers
http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0
Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0
Table of Contents
1. About Elsevier
1.1. A Short History of Elsevier
2. About Peer-Review
2.1. What Is Peer-Review?
2.2. Who Are Reviewers?
2.3. Why Reviewers Review?
2.4. Peer-Review Process
2.5. Types of Peer-Review
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
3.2. Promptness
3.3. Confidentiality
3.4. Standards of Objectivity
3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.7. Adherence to Elsevier Publishing Ethics
4. Peer-Review System
4.1. Elsevier Editorial System (EES)
4.2. Tools to Help
5. Supporting Our Reviewers
5.1. Online Support
5.2. Training
6. Listening to Our Reviewers
6.1. Reviewer Feedback Programme
6.2. Reviewers’ Home
6.3. Elsevier and Sense About Science Reviewer Survey
7. A Brief Guide to Reviewing
7.1. Purpose of Peer-Review
7.2. On Being Asked to Review
7.3. Conducting the Review
7.4. Communicating Your Report to the Editor
Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0
https://www.nxtbookmedia.com