JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for LIS-BIBLIOMETRICS Archives


LIS-BIBLIOMETRICS Archives

LIS-BIBLIOMETRICS Archives


LIS-BIBLIOMETRICS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LIS-BIBLIOMETRICS Home

LIS-BIBLIOMETRICS Home

LIS-BIBLIOMETRICS  June 2017

LIS-BIBLIOMETRICS June 2017

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Primary Research Group Inc. has published the International Survey of Medical & Other Life Sciences Faculty: Opinion of the Peer Review Process, ISBN 978-157440-459-3

From:

James Moses <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

A bibliometrics discussion list for the Library and Research Community <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:09:06 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (16 lines)

Primary Research Group Inc. has published the International Survey of Medical & Other Life Sciences Faculty: Opinion of the Peer Review Process, ISBN 978-157440-459-3

This 57-page report presents detailed data about what medical and other life sciences faculty from 50 major research universities think of the peer review process, and how they have experienced that process.  The study gives data on the percentage of scholars who have participated as peer review referees over the past three years, how many times that they have done so, and what level of confidence they have in the peer review process.  They give their opinions of the efficacy of blind review, double-blind review, and open review.  It also pinpoints the percentage of faculty who have been paid for peer review, and the forms of compensation.  In addition, the study presents precise data on the percentage of faculty who have been approached by open access journals to be reviewers, and the percentage who have been approached by digital repositories to serve the same role.  Finally, the study reports on the opinion of the 175 scientists and scholars sampled about how the peer review process can be improved.

Data and analysis in the report is presented separately for cohorts broken out by ten criteria including academic title, academic department, gender, university size, university ranking, university host nation, university public/private status and other variables. Study includes universities from the USA, Canada, the UK, Ireland and Australia.

Just a few of the report’s many findings include:
 
Nearly 65% of those sampled had served as a referee for a peer reviewed journal over the past three years.  The service level was lowest in the USA where 58.33% had served, and highest in Australia, where 90% had done so.

The oldest scholars were far more skeptical than others about the peer review process; more than 14% of scholars aged 60 or over were not very or not at all confident in the quality of the peer review process.

Close to half of faculty working in universities that charge less than $29,500 (US) per year in annual tuition had been approached by open access journals to be peer reviewers for them.

For further information view our website at www.PrimaryResearch.com.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager