Home > DocuBase > Article

« All DocuBase Articles


Friday, 6th November 2015

Peer Review in 2015: A Global View

Source: Taylor & Francis

From Key Findings:

Authors, editors and reviewers all agreed that the most important motivation to publish in peer-reviewed journals is making a contribution to the field and sharing research with others.

Playing a part in the academic process and improving papers are the most important motivations for reviewers. Similarly, 90% of SAS study respondents said that playing a role in the academic community was a motivation to review.

Most researchers, across the humanities and social sciences (HSS) and science, technology and medicine (STM), rate the benefit of the peer review process towards improving their article as 8 or above out of 10. This was found to be the most important aspect of peer review in both the ideal and the real world, echoing the earlier large-scale peer review studies.

In an ideal world, there is agreement that peer review should detect plagiarism (with mean ratings of 7.1 for HSS and 7.5 for STM out of 10), but agreement that peer review is currently achieving this in the real world is only 5.7 HSS / 6.3 STM out of 10.

Researchers thought there was a low prevalence of gender bias but higher prevalence of regional and seniority bias – and suggest that double blind peer review is most capable of preventing reviewer- discrimination where it is based on an author’s identity.

Most researchers wait between one and six months for an article they’ve written to undergo peer review, yet authors (not reviewers / editors) think up to two months is reasonable.

+ Direct link to document (PDF; 1 MB)



Having begun his career in academic libraries, Adrian Janes has subsequently worked extensively in public libraries, chiefly in enquiry work as an Information Services librarian. In this role he has had particular responsibility for information from both the UK Government and the European Union. He wrote a detailed report on sources for the latter which was published by FreePint in 2007, and has contributed articles to FreePint and ResourceShelf. He is involved in training in information literacy and the use of online reference resources.

A Contributing Editor to DocuTicker, he also write reviews for Pennyblackmusic.

More articles by Adrian Janes »

Please note: DocuTicker's editors collect citations for full-text PDF reports freely available on the web but we do not archive these reports. When you click a link to find and/or download the report, you are leaving the DocuTicker site. DocuTicker makes no representations regarding the ongoing availability of any report or any external resource. Links were accurate as of the date of posting.

« All DocuBase Articles



Article Categories

All Article Categories »


All DocuBase Sources »

Source Categories

All Source Categories »


All Archives »