Peer review

Written evidence submitted by
The Publishers Association (PR 46)

Introduction

1. The Publishers Association (‘the PA’) is the representative body for the book, journal, audio and electronic publishers in the UK. Our membership of 117 companies spans the academic, education and trade sectors, comprising small and medium enterprises through to globally successful companies. The PA’s members annually account for around £4.6bn of revenue, with £3.1bn derived from the sales of books and £1.5bn from the sales of learned journals.

2. The facilitation of peer review is key to the value that publishers bring to the publishing process and we are constantly mindful of ways to refine the peer review systems and processes applied to our journals. We welcome this inquiry as a further contribution to this process.

3. Peer review is an essential element of the culture of science and of scientific communication. It is a duty and a skill, performed by researchers, for researchers. It is a system that has been developed by the academic community, for the academic community over centuries and it is established practice that professional scientists are prepared to engage in peer review as a service to the community at large and as a contribution to the progress of science. A recent survey by Ware and Monkman [1] has shown that respondents tended to offer more altruistic reasons for why they review, headed by "playing your part as member of the academic community" and "enjoying being able to improve the paper". Peer review is used to inform funding decisions (such as the UK Research Excellence Framework), grant applications, career advancement, and decisions around publication. We shall confine our comments to this last application, principally to the review of articles for scholarly journals, but much of what we say could be applied to academic books as well.

4. Peer review is the quality filter in the process that publishes around 1.5m scholarly journal articles per year. It asks the question: "is this paper scientifically sound?" Peer review also informs the process of editorial selection whereby journal editors decide whether individual articles are appropriate for the journal. It will be applied to those submissions that are deemed on initial assessment to be in scope and meeting the minimum criteria applicable to the journal. Editors will therefore reject a proportion of submissions as out of scope prior to commissioning peer review. We also see peer review prior to publication of the Version of Record as distinct from post-publication commentary and correspondence. Peer review will influence, change and improve the content prior to publication; commentary and correspondence will not unless a new version is issued.

5. Publishers facilitate and enable peer review, but it is important to realise that scholarly publishers do NOT influence the process of peer review. Editorial independence of the judgement of journal editors and editorial boards is fundamental to the academic publishing process. The assessment and selection of content is independent of the publisher. It belongs to the canon of science.

The strengths and weaknesses of peer review

6. Peer review has been employed by the scientific community since the first journal appeared in 1665 and has stood the test of time as the mechanism for ensuring validity and integrity in the archive of science. It is however based on human endeavour and so cannot be perfect or infallible, although 85% of researchers agree that peer review increases the quality of the published article. Over time the journal brands that aggregate these articles become a signpost to quality for the reader.

7. Peer review should not be confused with the related issue of ethics, over matters such as fraud, non-disclosure of interests and conflicts, or plagiarism. Publishers are alive to concerns in this area as well. We support the Committee on Publication Ethics [1] . Most publishers and individual journals have statements for potential authors on ethical behaviour, and publishers work to raise awareness among journal editors and their communities. Publishers have developed CrossCheck [2] as part of CrossRef [3] which is used to detect plagiarism at submission stage.

Measures to strengthen peer review

8. It is a primary role of the publisher to enable peer review. We invest in state-of-the–art online management systems such as Scholar One and Editorial Manager to streamline the process and to provide tools to support the work of journal editors. Publishers receive over 3m article submissions per year, currently rising at 5-10%. Upwards to 3m referees will be involved in producing up to 4m reports, and around 50% of submissions will be rejected. Handling this enormous and constantly rising volume requires systems that are professionally developed and managed. These systems also contribute to increased transparency in the peer review process.

9. In addition, publishers spend time on the education of reviewers and authors through workshops. Recently publishers have invested in educating Chinese scholars about the necessity for, and the process of, peer review in order to address bad practice. Only last month the Chinese government GAPP agency ruled that a basket of Chinese journals should be closed down or punished because they are unable to guarantee the quality of their published papers [1] .

The value and use of peer reviewed science on advancing and testing scientific knowledge

10. Ware and Monkman [1] found that reviewers were motivated by "being able to improve the paper", by "seeing new work ahead of publication", by "reciprocating the benefit". Peer review is the mechanism for testing new science through expert opinion. It is part of the process of continuous professional development, and 91% of respondents indicated that they undertake review to play their part as a member of the academic community. To reinforce this, a study performed by Sense About Science [2] indicates that 84% of researchers indicate that without peer review there is no control in scientific communication.

The value and use of peer reviewed science in informing public debate

11. The availability of peer reviewed publications to record the progress of science is essential to the process of authentication of contributions to the scientific debate around publicly sensitive areas such as climate change or the development of biomedical science. Organisations such as Sense About Science [1] and the Science Media Centre [2] have campaigned for the value of peer-reviewed science in public debate. The progress of science is based on testable conclusions, as distinct from mere points of view looking for evidence to support their case. The objectivity of science underpinned by peer review is the basis for the progress of human knowledge.

The extent to which peer review varies between scientific disciplines and between countries across the world

12. There are profound differences between disciplines in relation to peer review. These differences are a reflection of the cultures and practices that have grown up around the disciplines themselves. It is not the role of publishers to intervene in this diversity but rather to enable the processes involved. A much stricter discipline of peer review has grown up around disciplines with public impact, especially the life sciences. Conversely ‘big science’ such as particle physics, where up to 100 authors can be involved in a single article, has evolved a culture of self-review which results in a low rejection rate of final articles for publication.

13. There remain considerable geographical imbalances between those who benefit from peer review and those who contribute, most starkly between the US, the most prolific peer reviewer, and China, whose output of papers in certain disciplines has risen exponentially since 2000 but whose participation in peer review is increasing much less quickly. It is expected however that these imbalances will even out over time and within the UK there is more of a balance between publication output and participation in peer review. Publishers active in India and China are appointing editors and establishing editorial offices from where they run workshops on peer review, journal publication practices, and publication ethics.

The processes by which reviewers with the requisite skills and knowledge are identified

14. Journal editors build up a resource list of potential referees facilitated by the systems set up for them by publishers. These can include expert reviewers suggested by the authors themselves. Sophisticated systems exist to identify appropriate peer reviewers, for example mapping key words associated with each journal article onto metadata associated with the reviewer list in order to identify the best fit. Multi-disciplinary research is not a barrier to effective peer review. Either the editor will want to use more reviewers than the standard two in order to cover the spread of disciplines involved, or will use reviewers who are themselves working in a multi-disciplinary environment. Science has always evolved through splits and associations between disciplines, and peer review is not hidebound by subject disciplines.

The impact of IT and greater use of online resources on the peer review process

15. The application and impact of IT on peer review is a key role for publishers. It is estimated that investment worldwide in this area has exceeded £70m since 2000. There is constant demand for greater speed of publication and this is a major factor in determining submissions. Scholarly publishers compete for authors on the supply side of the market, and to be able to reduce publication times brings significant competitive advantage. The ‘double blind’ process of peer review preferred by many authors and reviewers [1] takes time and involves more processes than single blind, open, or post-publication peer reviews. Publishers invest in online tools to facilitate these processes, and the situation is still dynamic. These systems bring other process innovations that enable progress checks and deliver more transparency through access to feedback from reviewers.

Possible alternatives to peer review

16. Policy on peer review is up to the community of scholars, not publishers. Our role is to facilitate whatever process is wanted. Hitherto the process of expert peer review has proved the enduring favoured approach. Other approaches have been trialled, but none has been particularly successful so far and most experiments have eventually been discontinued. It should be noted that peer review is independent of the business model applied to the journal, and that the 2014 Research Excellence Framework is still anchored in peer review.

Further evidence

17. We would be delighted to provide the Committee with any further evidence they may require, in written or in oral form.

The Publishers Association

9 March 2011