The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process.

Background Publishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Giordan M
Csikász-Nagy Attila
Collings AM
Vaggi F
Format: Article
Published: 2016
Series:F1000RESEARCH 5
Subjects:
mtmt:3115906
Online Access:https://publikacio.ppke.hu/1647

MARC

LEADER 00000nab a2200000 i 4500
001 publ1647
005 20241111132309.0
008 241111s2016 hu o 0|| Angol d
022 |a 2046-1402 
024 7 |a 3115906  |2 mtmt 
040 |a PPKE Publikáció Repozitórium  |b hun 
041 |a Angol 
100 1 |a Giordan M 
245 1 4 |a The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process.  |h [elektronikus dokumentum] /  |c  Giordan M 
260 |c 2016 
490 0 |a F1000RESEARCH  |v 5 
520 3 |a Background Publishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications. Methods Here we examine an element of the editorial process at eLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions to eLife since June 2012, of which 2,750 were sent for peer review, using R and Python to perform the statistical analysis. Results The Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and 5 days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). There was no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates for published articles where the Reviewing Editor served as one of the peer reviewers. Conclusions An important aspect of eLife's peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach. 
650 4 |a Biokémia és molekuláris biológia 
650 4 |a Immunológia 
650 4 |a Farmakológia és gyógyszerészet 
700 0 2 |a Csikász-Nagy Attila  |e aut 
700 0 2 |a Collings AM  |e aut 
700 0 2 |a Vaggi F  |e aut 
856 4 0 |u https://publikacio.ppke.hu/id/eprint/1647/1/F1000research2016.pdf  |z Dokumentum-elérés