Evidence Summary


 


Manuscripts Published in a Specific Chemistry
Journal Must Be Both Important and Suitable According to Peer Reviewers


 


A Review of:


Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). The manuscript reviewing process:
empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in
peer review. Library & Information Science Research, 32(1), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2009.07.010


  


Reviewed by:


Michelle
DuBroy


Discipline
Librarian, Researcher Services


Griffith
University


Southport,
Queensland, Australia


 


Received: 25 Feb. 2021                                                              Accepted:  9 Apr. 2021


 


 


 2021 DuBroy. This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.




 


 


DOI: 10.18438/eblip29936


 





 


Abstract


 


Objective – To examine the peer review process at a single
journal.


 


Design – Analysis
of business records.


 


Setting – Peer review system of a single journal.


 


Subjects – Documents produced when reviewing manuscripts
submitted for publication to journal Angewandte
Chemie International Edition and reviewed in the
year 2000.


 


Methods – Peer
review process information was extracted from the journal’s archives. Various
aspects, such as review sequences and decision rules, were analysed and
summarised in tables.


 


Main results – Of the 1899 manuscripts reviewed in the year 2000,
46% (n = 878) were accepted for publication and 54% (n = 1021) were rejected.
On average, a manuscript received 2.6 reviews before an editor made a
publication decision. Just over half (n = 962, approx. 51%) of manuscripts were
subject to two review steps. A small number of manuscripts (n = 104, approx.
5.5%) were subject to 5, 6 or 7 review steps. The more steps an article was
subject to, the greater likelihood it would be accepted. Editors “generally
follow a so-called clear-cut rule” (p.11) in which manuscripts accepted for
publication must be considered both important and suitable for publication by
at least two peer reviewers.


 


Conclusion –
The results “give a sense of commitment [and care] ...probably typical of most
prestigious journals” (p.11).


 


Commentary


 


Peer review is a fundamental part of the research
process. Despite its importance, traditional peer review is said to lack
sufficient transparency, accountability, and consistency (Ross-Hellauer, 2017).


 


This study was likely the first to examine the inner
workings of the peer review system. Years later, our understanding of peer
review has greatly increased, yet many challenges remain (Tennant, 2018).


 


The study was evaluated using a critical appraisal
tool (Perryman & Rathbun-Grubb, 2014). While the study was successful in
opening the “black box” (p.5) of peer review at a single journal, it also
suffered from a few weaknesses.


 


A concise literature review gives adequate background and
context. The methods generally appear logical for addressing the stated
objectives. Further, the authors reported their findings thoroughly and made
good use of tables.


 


Reproducibility is unfortunately limited. Many details
regarding the research process are unknown. Did the authors code the
information in some way? Did they use software for the analysis? Readers can
only guess.


 


Further, the intended audience and utility of this
study is unclear. The authors refer to library “collection managers” (p. 11),
but they do not suggest how this group might apply the results of the study to
their practice. Additionally, the authors do not discuss how other users, such
as researchers, might make practical use of the study’s findings. Clearer
research questions, focused on supplying readers with meaningful answers
(Doolan & Froelicher, 2009), may have given the
analysis needed direction.


 


Overall, this notable study revealed details regarding
an important, yet relatively opaque, part of the research ecosystem. It may be
of some interest to academic librarians who support researchers in their
scholarly publishing. However, clearer, more audience-focused research questions
may have helped increase the study’s usefulness. Additionally, more transparent
research processes would have enabled other researchers to productively build
on their work.


 


References


 


Doolan, D. M., & Froelicher,
E. S. (2009). Using an existing data set to answer new research questions: a
methodological review. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice, 23(3),
203-215. https://doi.org/10.1891/1541-6577.23.3.203


 


Perryman, C., & Rathbun-Grubb, S. (2014). The CAT: A
generic critical appraisal tool. https://www.jotform.us/cp1757/TheCat


 


Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017).
What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; peer review: 4
approved]. F1000Research, 6(588). https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2


 


Tennant, J. P. (2018). The state of the art in peer
review. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 365(19). https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny204