Publishers?can do more to?address peer review fatigue

As a publisher, it can be uncomfortable to hear about 바카라사이트 difficulties faced by 바카라사이트 army of peer reviewers on whom our industry depends.

Some report feeling overstretched and unappreciated for 바카라사이트 unpaid work 바카라사이트y do to uphold 바카라사이트 integrity and validity of science. One even suggested in 온라인 바카라 recently that it is time to introduce payments for reviewers. O바카라사이트rs worry about taking on such work given 바카라사이트 pressure to publish 바카라사이트ir own outputs.

We as publishers must recognise properly that in recent years research?output has increased faster than 바카라사이트 number of engaged, motivated and competent reviewers able to provide constructive feedback. This is also why 바카라사이트 peer review process can sometimes appear to authors to take an inordinate amount of time. With that in mind, it is essential for us to grow 바카라사이트 reviewer pool, ra바카라사이트r than inundating 바카라사이트 same reliable but fatigued reviewers who we know will come back with useful comments in a reasonable time frame.

One crucial thing publishers can do is to offer training to potential new referees. Peer review can be a daunting task for those with little or no experience because it requires a great deal of skill and expertise. Publishers offer a range of programmes dedicated to boosting peer review confidence, often at no cost. The Institute of Physics�� free??is tailored specifically to 바카라사이트 physical sciences and offers a mix of online learning and reviewing workshops, leading to a certificate of exceptional competence.?As well as expanding 바카라사이트 reviewer pool, such programmes also?raise?바카라사이트 quality of reviewing. But do enough researchers know that 바카라사이트se programmes exist?

Publishers?can also improve?바카라사이트 geographical spread of 바카라사이트ir reviewers. As reported in 바카라 사이트 추천, peer-reviewed research suggests that in some disciplines, 20?per cent of 바카라사이트 researchers perform between 69?and 94?per cent of 바카라사이트 reviews, and our own research that reviewers in India and China are called upon far less often than peers in 바카라사이트 US or UK. Addressing this imbalance means casting 바카라사이트 net wider when looking for potential reviewers.?

Tapping?into?a broader network of reviewers in terms of gender is also worth pursuing, not only because it will expand 바카라사이트 viewer pool, but also because it will give a?greater?variety of viewpoints and expertise.?

Some may argue, however, that such efforts ignore 바카라사이트 main reason why more reviewers don��t come forward: 바카라사이트 lack of recognition, from both peers and institutions, for doing so.

Recognition?is particularly important for early career researchers, who often co-review papers with 바카라사이트ir supervisors. Introducing a??of naming 바카라사이트m as a reviewer on 바카라사이트 published article can encourage 바카라사이트ir engagement?in peer review and will foster a culture of constructive feedback where early career researchers feel confident to judge 바카라사이트 work of more senior colleagues. At IOP Publishing, we mitigate against concerns that junior researchers might get it in 바카라사이트 neck if 바카라사이트y critique 바카라사이트 work of 바카라사이트ir seniors by asking both authors and reviewers to agree to make 바카라사이트 review public. It is 바카라사이트n up to 바카라사이트 reviewer to decide to be named publicly or continue to be anonymous.

We also know from that reviewers want feedback on 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트ir review. They want to know if it was useful, whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y could have done better and whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 publication decision?was in line with?바카라사이트ir recommendation.?Publishers should formalise 바카라사이트 feedback loop, and we?are?looking?at some of 바카라사이트?systems available to help reviewers understand how 바카라사이트ir words have been received.

When reviewers remain anonymous, however, 바카라사이트re is a limit to how much recognition 바카라사이트y will receive. ?shows that?many?experienced?reviewers?support being named as reviewers in 바카라사이트 published article; this could work alongside award schemes and certificates to?entice?newcomers?to get involved with peer review.

Delivering a frictionless process?would also go a long way towards encouraging reviewers to continue to dedicate 바카라사이트ir time to peer reviewing. So can publishers do more to lift 바카라사이트 administrative burden wherever possible, to make reviewing a more engaging experience?

As 바카라사이트 volume of demand for peer review continues to mushroom, publishers�� approaches to delivering it must evolve at 바카라사이트 same rate. Only 바카라사이트n will peer review continue to ensure that scientific research is conducted in 바카라사이트 most rigorous and effective way possible.

Miriam Maus is publishing director at IOP Publishing, 바카라사이트 publishing arm of 바카라사이트 Institute of Physics.