Dissecting the peer-review process: A cross-disciplinary study of editor and reviewer roles in academia

Ian Macgregor-Fors, Wesley Dáttilo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Dissecting the peer-review process: A cross-disciplinary study of editor and reviewer roles in academia. In the current debate on academic publishing, the roles of editors and reviewers are under scrutiny. To capture views on these roles, assess discrepancies between their perceived and desired functions, and gauge acceptance of the peer-review process, we conducted a survey, yielding 569 responses from 70 countries. Our findings reveal two key insights: there are significant differences between perceived and actual roles of editors and reviewers across disciplines, suggesting variability in peer-review practices. The main discrepancy was that authors perceived reviewers as solely responsible for acceptance decisions, whereas respondents expressed a preference for joint decision-making by Editors-in-Chief and Associate Editors. Despite a low rating of peer review effectiveness in ensuring publication quality, most respondents believe it should be retained. These results underscore the need for cross-disci-plinary dialogue to develop ethical and professional practices that enhance the quality of academic publishing.

Original languageEnglish
JournalAnimal Biodiversity and Conservation
Volume47
Issue number2
Pages (from-to)227-231
Number of pages5
ISSN1578-665X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2024
MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© [2024] belongs to the authors.

Fields of Science

  • Academic publishing
  • Cross-discipline assessment
  • Editorial practices
  • Peer-review practices
  • 119 Other natural sciences
  • 222 Other engineering and technologies
  • 319 Forensic science and other medical sciences
  • 415 Other agricultural sciences
  • 5200 Other social sciences
  • 6160 Other humanities

Cite this