Tagged / peer review

Peer review picking up weaknesses in a scientific paper

international, Publishing, writing

Peer review is the the key pillar of academic publishing.  Peer reviewers will read the submitted paper and assess its knowledge contribution, the appropriateness of the research question, the ethical considerations, the quality of the research methods used and the appropriateness of the discussion, conclusion, and recommendations in the manuscript. [1]  It is worth bearing in mind that most peer reviewers are unpaid volunteers, academics like us who review for journals over and above the day job.[2]  For the authors peer reviewers can give excellent feedback.  Harvey and colleagues remind their readers that peer reviewers reading your manuscript with a fresh pair of eyes, can lead to them raising great questions and offering useful comments.  In short, reviewers’ reservations and misunderstandings can help you to rephrase and better focus your paper. [3]

However, what the review process does not do is picking up every possible minor mistake and typo in a paper.  I was reminded of this last week when I read a peer-reviewed paper in which the basic demographics table (the characteristics of the study participants) did not add up to 100%.  Luckily, the same authors (who shall remain nameless) published a different paper from the same study in another quality journal, which allowed me to check the numbers.  Interestingly, the second paper in another peer-reviewed journal had the same mistake.   In the end I ended up writing to two different editors pointing out this anomaly.   The editors contacted the authors who have since promised to rectify the mistake.

Something similar has also happened to us.  Occasionally I reread one of our articles in a good journal and wonder about some of the unclear sentences or poorly expressed grammar or style.  Neither the editor nor the peer-reviewers spotted it nor did my co-authors and I noticed these mistakes in the paper proofs.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health)

 

 

References:

  1. van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Shanker, S. (2022) Selecting an Appropriate Journal and Submitting your Paper, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 20-31.
  2. van Teijlingen, E., Thapa, D., Marahatta, S.B., Sapkota, J.L., Regmi, P. Sathian, B. (2022) Editors and Reviewers: Roles and Responsibilities, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 32-37.
  3. Harvey, O., Taylor, A., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Struggling to reply to reviewers: Some advice for novice researchers. Health Prospect, 21(2):19-22.

 

Dealing with difficult reviewers

international, open access, Publishing, writing

This week saw the publication of another Bournemouth University paper on academic writing and publishing.  This latest paper ‘Struggling to reply to reviewers: Some advice for novice researchers‘ has been published in the scientific journal Health Prospect: Journal of Public Health.  This  journal is published in Nepal and it is Open Access, hence freely available across the globe.

Peer review is the process by which academic journals assess and regulate the quality of content they publish, by inviting academic experts to review your submitted manuscripts.  It is a process of quality control. Once you have submitted your paper to a journal the editor will select potential peer reviewers within the field of research to peer-review your manuscript and make recommendations. In many case the peer review process can be a positive experience for you as it allows you to develop your skills and improve your written work.  For example, good reviewers may notice potential imbalances, point out missing key references or highlight different potential perspectives, and thus help you to enhance the overall quality of the paper.  On some occasions, however a reviewer can be a complete pain in the neck!

The paper is written by a multidisciplinary team based in the Department of Nursing Sciences (Dr. Regmi), the Department of Social Sciences and Social Work (Dr. Harvey), and the Department of Midwifery & Health Sciences (Dr. Taylor & Prof. van Teijlingen).  The authors bring their combined expertise in midwifery, social work, health education, sociology and health services research to offers the readers advice how to deal with the more difficult reviewers.

 

Reference:

  1. Harvey, O., Taylor, A., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Struggling to reply to reviewers: Some advice for novice researchers Health Prospect: Journal of Public Health 21(2):19-22

10 Tips for Getting Started as a Peer Reviewer

BU Challenges, Publishing

Are you thinking about being a peer reviewer but aren’t sure where to start? Are you concerned that you don’t have enough experience to review a manuscript for a journal?

Click on the link below to find out the ten easy things you can do to prepare to be a reviewer and put yourself in a position to start reviewing. Some of these are so simple you can do them in the next five minutes. Get started now!

10 tips for getting started as a peer reviewer

New BU publication on academic writing

international, open access, PG research, Publishing, writing

Congratulations to Dr. Orlanda Harvey in the Department of Social Sciences & Social Work, Dr. Pramod Regmi in the Department of Nursing Science and FHSS Visiting Faculty Jillian Ireland, Professional Midwifery Advocate in Poole Maternity Hospital (UHD/University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust) whose paper ‘Co-authors, colleagues, and contributors: Complexities in collaboration and sharing lessons on academic writing‘ was published today.[1] 

The paper argues that academic writing, especially in the health field, is usually an interdisciplinary team effort. It highlights some of the trials, tribulations, and benefits of working with co-authors. This includes collaborations and co-authorship between academics from different disciplines, academics of different level of careers, and authors from countries of varying economies i.e., high-income countries (HICs) and from low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This paper also provides advice in the form of several useful tips to lead authors and co-authors to support collaborative working.  Our other co-authors are: Aney Rijal, postgraduate student and Executive Editor of the journal Health Prospect based in Nepal, and Alexander van Teijlingen postgraduate student in the Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland).

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health

 

Reference:

  1. Harvey, O., van Teijlingen, A., Regmi, P.R., Ireland, J., Rijal, A., van Teijlingen, E.R. (2022) Co-authors, colleagues, and contributors: Complexities in collaboration and sharing lessons on academic writing Health Prospect 21(1):1-3.

Peer-reviewing ten years on

Guidance, international, Publishing, writing

The process of peer review is widely recognised as the key element of quality control in academic publishing and the scientific community more generally.  Peer review is the critical appraisal of one’s work by fellow scholars, who read and comment on your manuscript and offered a verdict on its quality, rigour, originality, style, completeness, etc. etc.

Peer reviewers are typically experts in your field, if not your topic, or who have expertise in the methods you applied or the population or are you studied.  They are also academics often with busy day jobs, who act as unpaid peer reviewers, and as journal editors for that matter.  Peer reviewers are with full-time jobs who give up their free time to review for academic journals.  A recent article by Aczel and colleagues (2021) reported that reviewers across the globe spent over 100 million hours on peer reviewing for free in 2020, the estimated value of this equated to nearly £300 million in the UK alone.  This quantifies in some of my feelings I wrote about a decade ago now in a BU Research Blog with the title ‘Peer review and bust academics’.

However, with the ever-growing number of health and social science journals the requests for reviewing seem to grow relentlessly.  This month alone (November 2021) I received twenty or 21 requests to review.  I have reviewed three manuscripts for Birth, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, and The Journal of International Development, but I had to reject or ignore many more (see Table 1).  I usually do my reviews over the weekend.  One weekend this month I could not review because I had to prepare materials for the external auditor who came to visit Bournemouth University for a project recently completed, and this weekend I could not find the time because I’m proof-reading two PhD chapters (and writing this blog).

I leave you with some food for thought: academics spent time applying for research funding, then apply for the ethical approval, do the research, we write up the findings, and write blogs about the process!

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH)

 

Reference:

Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., Holcombe, A.O. (2021) A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 6, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2.

ORCID reviewer recognition for UKRI reviewers

UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has developed a new feature in its current funding systems to recognise formally the contributions of UKRI reviewers via ORCID, a unique identifier tool for individuals.

The implementation of ORCID reviewer recognition went live on 23 Nov. 2020. It will enable UKRI review contributions to be publicly displayed without compromising the anonymity and confidentiality of the assessment process. This will be done by issuing a ‘review credit’ that will be displayed in individual reviewers ORCID profiles.

To receive “ORCID review credits”, UKRI reviewers must hold an ORCID account and link their ORCID ID to their Je-S account. UKRI will only send ORCID review credits to the reviewers that submit a “usable review” via Je-S after 23 Nov. 2020. For more information, please see UKRIs webpage on how they recognise reviewer contribution, and the guidance on ORCID Reviewer Recognition for UKRI reviewers.

Call for members to UKRI International Development Peer Review College

UKRI is very pleased to announce a Call for new members to the UKRI International Development Peer Review College. UKRI is inviting applications for new members to the College from both academics and non-academics from organisations based in or working with DAC list countries, such as policymakers, non-governmental organisations and civil society organisations. Eligible applicants should have ODA experience as well as interdisciplinary knowledge. The Call opens on 25 November and closes 20 December 15.00 UK time.

UKRI especially invites applications from women to achieve their aim of a 50:50 gender balance in College membership. UKRI is also especially keen to receive applications from applicants in certain DAC-list countries (please see section 4 in the Call text) and from certain research areas where the College has a shortage (please see section 5 in Call text).

The Call text has information on eligibility, how to and where to apply. UKRI strongly advises potential applicants to read through the Call text carefully and to look at the SmartSurvey screenshots before starting their application.

A letter of support is required from a senior member of BU. For academics: If you are a professor, your letter of support should be signed by the VC. If you are a senior lecturer, your letter of support should be signed by a department head or equivalent. If you are an Early Career Researcher, it should be signed by a professor in your department or equivalent. Please contact your signatory and confirm their support before beginning your application.

More information about the College can be found on the College webpage.

If you are interested in applying then please inform Jo Garrad in RDS.

An epidemic of invitations

international, Knowledge Exchange, Publishing, Research Integritiy, writing

Once you have submitted you manuscript to a scientific journal, the editor has a (quick) look at it and sends it out for review.  As I remind students and colleagues in training sessions on academic writing and publishing, the editor and the peer reviewers are academics like me and my colleagues who do both the editing and the reviewing, for free and over and above the day job.  Being an editor and a reviewer are part of being any academic’s so-called scholarly activity.  We are expected to do this as part of the wider scientific community for the benefit of our academic discipline(s).

When an academic receives an invitation to peer review, the journal will send you a copy of the paper’s abstract.  On reading this abstract you then decide whether you wish to do the review.  If the paper sounds interesting and it is in your field and you have the time you may volunteer to conduct a review.  Once you have agreed you will get the full paper (or more likely you are send a link to the publisher’s website).  The requirements of the review report varies between disciplines and often between journals. Some follow an informal structure, but others have a more formal approach, sometimes with scoring systems for sections of the paper.

Unfortunately, academics across the globe are experiencing an ‘epidemic’ of invitations to review for scientific journals.  And I am not talking about so-called predatory publishers, i.e. journals and publishers that are only in it for the monetary gain, no I am talking about legitimate journals sending out invitations to review for them.   Especially scholars with a few decent publications receive several emails a week from often high quality scientific journals.  The photo of my email inbox shows three invitations in a row I received in the space of two hours last week (10th July), two are even from different Associate Editors for the same journal!

I would like to stress that doing peer reviews is very important.  It is the backbone of academic publishing.  Reviewing is part of our overall scholarly responsibility so we all do it, although some more than others.  We all have are favourite journals to review for, perhaps because the journal is high quality, or we like to publish in it ourselves, because we know the editor, or our reviewing is recognised on websites like KUDOS.  I would like to urge colleagues who don’t manage to review at least once a month to step up and agree to review a wee bit more often.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health

ESRC want you!

ESRC is inviting applications from academics suitably experienced in the social sciences to act as members of their Grants Assessment Panels (GAPs).

About the Panels

The ESRC is the UK’s leading agency for research and training in the social sciences. Their Grants Assessment Panels (GAPs) assess proposals for most responsive mode schemes across the range of ESRC’s activities.

There are currently three Panels organised around a cluster of disciplines with a fourth panel that considers proposals submitted to the Secondary Data Analysis Initiative (SDAI). Between them the Panels cover the whole of ESRC’s disciplinary remit.

Membership of a GAP is an opportunity to work with other experienced people from across the academic, public, business and civil society sectors to help ensure ESRC funds high quality research with academic, economic and societal impact. Members will also have an opportunity to feed into, and learn about ESRC policy development.

New members

ESRC are currently looking for applications specifically in the following disciplinary areas:

Human Geography (panel A)

  • Essential: Should have expertise across the Human Geography remit
  • Desirable: Specific expertise in areas such as inequality, migration, environment and climate change would be desirable.

Psychology (panel A) – post 1

  • Essential: Should be a social psychologist with broad expertise covering quantitative and qualitative methods
  • Desirable: Specific expertise in areas such as attitudes, ‘Identity, diversity and inequality’ and ‘Individual differences’ would be desirable

Psychology (panel A) – post 2

  • Essential: Should have a broad expertise across the Psychology remit
  • Desirable: Specific expertise in behaviour change, developmental psychology and mental health would be desirable.

Sociology/ Social Policy (panel D)

  • Essential: Should have a broad expertise across the sociology and social policy disciplines.
  • Desirable: This post is for Panel D and therefore requires someone with expertise in quantitative methods and secondary data analysis

Education (panel B)

  • Essential: Should have a broad expertise across the sociology and social policy disciplines.
  • Desirable: Specific expertise in primary education and quantitative research methods would be desirable

Education (panel D)

  • Essential: Should have a broad expertise across the sociology and social policy disciplines.
  • Desirable: This post is for panel D and therefore requires someone with expertise in quantitative methods and secondary data analysis

Linguistics (panel B)

  • Essential: Should have broad expertise across the linguistics discipline
  • Desirable: Specific expertise in second language acquisition and/or language processing would be desirable

Socio-legal studies (panel B)

  • Essential: Should have broad expertise across the discipline of socio-legal studies
  • Desirable: Specific expertise in criminology, criminal justice and policing would be desirable

Members are expected to assess an average of 30 applications a year and to meet three times a year (in March, July and November) to make funding recommendations. Meetings will alternate between London and Swindon.

New Chair for Panel D

In addition to the appointment of new members, there is also a vacancy to chair Panel D. Panel D covers the Secondary Data Analysis Initiative. See the announcement for further details.

How to apply

Applications should be submitted online no later than 17.00 on 19 May 2017. A short CV (no longer than two A4 pages) should be included.

Successful applicants will be appointed for two years initially, with possible renewal for a further two years. Invitations will be sent to successful candidates in late July/early August and members will be expected to be available for a briefing session on 7 September 2017 in Swindon.

Free Peer Review Workshop for Early Career Researchers

Knowledge Exchange, open access, writing

Find out about peer review.

Debate challenges to the system.

Discuss the role of peer review for scientists and the public.

 

Friday 12th May, 2pm– 6pm

Workshop to be held at Informa’s Offices, 5 Howick Place, London

 

Peer Review: The nuts and bolts is a free half-day workshop for early career researchers and will explore how peer review works, how to get involved, the challenges to the system, and the role of peer review in helping the public to evaluate research claims.

 

Should peer review detect plagiarism, bias or fraud? What does peer review do for science and what does the scientific community want it to do for them? Should reviewers remain anonymous? Does it illuminate good ideas or shut them down?

 

To apply to attend this workshop, please fill out the application form by 9am on Tuesday 25 April: http://bit.ly/2mCFsyr

 

For more details, get in touch with Joanne Thomas jthomas@senseaboutscience.org.

More information: http://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-workshop/

AHRC moves to single panel for Research Grants

From December 2015 the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) will be employing one panel to moderate its Research Grants scheme. This is a change from the current four panel structure which brings the scheme into line with other AHRC funding such as the Leadership Fellows scheme.ahrc

There will be no changes to the pre-panel peer review stage. The single panel structure will allow for the AHRC to hold panel meetings more frequently than the current quarterly arrangements, which will lead to more timely delivery of outcomes to applicants.

Newton Fund seeks Peer Review Panel Members

Training

newton fundThe Newton Fund is actively inviting expressions of interest from senior and early career researchers to expand their pool of panel members for the Newton Fund initiative and, potentially, other British Council programmes.

Looking at the specialisms below, BU has significant expertise in many of these areas.

They are looking for early career researchers who would like to broaden their experience of peer review as a career development opportunity, and for senior researchers who are willing to share and use their experience to support the review panels. Please note that we can only consider researchers based at UK institutions.

By getting involved in funding panels, you will gain invaluable insights into how a funder functions, how they assess applications, build your network, raise your profile in your field and, potentially, give you the opportunity to influence future funding decisions.

For this particular invitation:

Eligibility  Senior and early-career researchers. Early-career researcher is defined as being aCollaborative Decision Making PhD holder + up to 10 years. For fields where a PhD is not a usual career requirement, sufficient research experience will be accepted.

Researchers with the following specialisms are eligible to apply:

  • Biological and Medical Sciences
  • Environment and Agriculture
  • Arts and Humanities
  • Social Sciences
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences

In particular, the Newton Fund would like to hear from researchers who have the following subject specialisms:

  • Human rights
  • Forensic anthropology
  • Marine biology/Oceanography
  • Aquaculture
  • Public health/Nutrition
  • Food science
  • Microbiology
  • Earth Sciences

Find out more and apply!

AHRC call for Nominations to their Peer Review College

The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) is seeking nominations for new members to be appointed to its Peer Review College (PRC). 

Peer review lies at the heart of the AHRC’s operations, and they are fully committed to the principle of peer review for the assessment of proposals to their schemes and programmes. PRC members provide expert quality reviews of proposals within their areas of expertise, which inform the AHRC’s decision making processes. As well as making an important contribution to the AHRC’s peer review processes, the experience gained by membership of the College will provide benefits to you, your department and to Bournemouth University.

Nominations are welcomed for either of the below Calls:

Call for Early Career Researchers (ECRs)

Eligibility – Nominations for all candidates who meet the eligibility for the PRC Academic group (ECR) and who meet the AHRC ECR criteria.  At the point of nomination to the college the nominee must be:

  • Within eight years of the award of their PhD or equivalent professional training or
  • Within six years  of their first academic appointment

Please be aware that current AHRC PRC members do not need to apply for this call. Former PRC members are only eligible to apply if their PRC membership ended before 16th April 2013.  For further information, read the ECR Call for Nominations advert (PDF 71KB, opens in a new window).

Call for membership of the Strategic and Technical reviewer groups

Eligibility – Nominations for all candidates, from any career stage, who meet the criteria for the Strategic or Technical groups of the AHRC PRC.  Current members are eligible to apply for this Call if they meet the criteria for one or either of these groups. Former PRC members are only eligible to apply if their PRC membership ended before 16th April 2013.  For further information, click here to view read the Strategic/Technical group Call for Nominations advert (PDF 85KB, opens in a new window).

The deadline for nominations to both Calls is 12 noon on 16th April 2015.

If successful, College members will be appointed for a term commencing 1 October 2015 and ending 31 December 2018.

If you have any queries regarding the nomination process please do not hesitate to contact:

Matthew Carr, AHRC Peer Review College Coordinator (Membership)

Email: m.carr@ahrc.ac.uk; Tel: 01793 416069

AHRC Advisory Board vacancies

Funding opportunities, Guidance

The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) is seeking expressions of interest from suitably experienced individuals in the academic and non-academic sectors to join the Advisory Board in 2015.

AHRC funds research and post graduate training across a wide disciplinary remit as well as facilitating opportunities for researchers to engage in international, knowledge exchange, partnerships and public policy activities. It is a non-departmental government body sponsored by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and is governed by the Council, which is responsible for the overarching strategic direction of the organisation.

The role of the Advisory Board is to advise AHRC Council and Executive on the development and implementation of strategic approaches to funding which reflect the challenges and opportunities arising for the arts and humanities research and those that engage with it.

The Board is looking particularly for expertise in the following areas:

  • Classics and/or Archaeology
  • Design
  • Digital Humanities
  • Performing Arts
  • Music
  • Theology
  • Modern Languages
  • Voluntary Sector

Please see the Terms of Reference for the Advisory Board (PDF 35KB, opens in a new window) and the Role and Person Specification (PDF 90KB, opens in a new window), which outline the skills and experience AHRC require for potential Board members.

If you are interested in becoming a member of the Board please submit an Expression of Interest form (Word 37KB, opens in a new window) (no longer than 500 words) outlining (in no more than 500 words) how you meet the criteria required, together with a short CV (no longer than 2 sides of A4) and the Equal Opportunities form (Word 41KB, opens in a new window) (which is not seen by the panel) to Rose Easton (r.easton@ahrc.ac.uk) by the deadline of 4pm on 20 April 2015.

Interviews will take place at Medical Research Council, Kemble St, London on 14 May 2015.

AHRC will seek to ensure a healthy balance of institutional and regional representation on the Board. AHRC is committed to openness and transparency of process and to provide equal opportunities to all, irrespective of age, gender, race, disability, marital status, religion, sexual orientation, transgender and working patterns.

If you have any question concerning the vacancies, please contact Rose Easton on 01793 416014 or email r.easton@ahrc.ac.uk.

Become an evaluator for Horizon 2020

Horizon 2020 is now seeking Evaluators. Don’t worry, they don’t expect you to be an expert in the calls or even to have won funding. Just to be an expert in your subject area.  

Registering to be an expert has lots of value – you could get paid to evaluate and monitor projects or evaluate calls for proposals under the schemes. Indeed, becoming  an EC evaluator is a fantastic experience; it not only helps you learn what the EC are looking for in proposals, but also enables you to travel to Brussels and network with other reviewers to start forming collaborations yourself.

It’s really simple to sign up, you just pop your details in the form (which isn’t very long) and when an appropriate call or proposal comes up, they will ask if you can review it. If you can’t, you simply let them know and you are not obliged to. You also get until December 2020 to sign up to be a reviewer if you aren’t quite ready yet!

You will get paid a day rate to do the review plus travel and subsistence and you can also still apply for the funding scheme if you are registered as a reviewer (although for a specific call you apply to, you would have to declare a conflict of interest).

More info can be found here