Written evidence submitted by Vitae (PR
95)
1. Vitae is supported by Research Councils UK
(RCUK), managed by CRAC: The Career Development Organisation and
delivered in partnership with eight regional Hub host universities.
2. Vitae works in close collaboration with all
UK higher education institutions ((HEIs) to embed professional
and career development for researchers into the research environment.
Vitae provides HE sector leadership, enabling strategic policy
interaction between funders and HEIs, building an evidence base
of the impact of researchers and career destinations. We play
a major role in providing professional training, developing resources
and training materials, sharing practice and enhancing the capability
of the higher education sector to provide professional development
and training for researchers. Our vision is for the UK to be world-class
in supporting the personal, professional and career development
of researchers. We work with both postgraduate researchers studying
for doctoral degrees and research staff employed in institutions
primarily to do research.
3. Within our broader commentary, our response
focuses on the implications of the peer review process on the
career development of researchers. This includes how early career
researchers develop the requisite skills and knowledge to be effective
peer reviewers, become involved in the process and the implications
for equality and diversity. We comment on the level of recognition
associated with peer reviewing in terms of career progression
and workload management. In developing this response we canvassed
views from senior academics and staff developers through the Vitae
network.
THE STRENGTHS
AND WEAKNESSES
OF PEER
REVIEW IN
PUBLISHING
4. Peer review is a critical part of the process
of producing research. Overall it has proved to be the most effective
system for assuring the quality of research outputs. It provides
a mechanism by which the integrity and authority of the research
can be assessed by informed reviewers prior to publication, thereby
providing a level of confidence to researchers, research users
and the public. It is critical for public confidence in research
that we are able to demonstrate that the peer review process is
fair, inclusive, transparent and robust.
5. As well as assessing the merit for publication,
the peer review process contributes to the rigour of the research;
referee reports often providing suggestions to strengthen the
presentation of the research. Being a peer reviewer improves critical
thinking, skills for giving and receiving feedback, and preparing
their own work for publication. These are important aspects of
the development of research leaders for the future.
6. Most researchers will experience both authoring
and reviewing papers during their careers and therefore have a
vested interest in the system being as robust, ethical and equitable
as possible. Engaging in the peer review process is seen as part
of being an academic researcher and contributing to the overall
health of the sector. It is not a perfect system however: there
are tensions between the need for timely publication and the peer
review process. The scale and diversity of the process mean that
consistency of quality in reviewing is challenging, if not impossible
to achieve. There is evidence that questions the objectivity of
the process and whether bias and personal views influence academic
judgement.[74]
7. There is an expectation that researchers will
contribute to sustaining the peer review system by participating
as reviewers. This is predominantly without financial or formal
recognition, except for members of editorial boards (or grant
review panels). The process of reviewing is time-consuming and
seen as an accepted and necessary activity, yet it is rarely acknowledged
as part of the formal workload of an academic researcher. Senior
researchers may delegate to early career researchers, providing
a useful development opportunity, but not always mentoring or
acknowledging their contribution. Reviewing is often an "out
of normal hours" activity and therefore adds additional burdens
on researchers with family and caring commitments. "Good"
reviewers are more likely to be invited to do more reviewing,
thereby adding to their workloads.
8. Given the lack of recognition, contributing
to the peer review process does not significantly contribute to
a researcher's career progression opportunities. Research outputs
are critical in achieving and sustaining a research career and
engaging in peer reviewing may in practice reduce the opportunity
for focusing on producing research outputs. However this is tensioned
against the fact that engaging in peer review can help researchers
improve and attune their own publications. It is important that
researches at all stages in their career are given the opportunity
and recognition for their peer review efforts.
MEASURES TO
STRENGTHEN PEER
REVIEW
9. The majority of researchers become experienced
in peer review by engaging with the process: "learning on
the job". This has its strengths and weaknesses. It is a
very effective way of learning, provided it is acknowledged as
a learning process and appropriate support is provided, such as
mentoring and providing feedback on reviews during the process,
to improve their expertise. This could be by editors, fellow reviewers
or experienced researchers and provided as part of a managed programme
of researcher development rather than in an ad hoc manner.
10. Until recently there were few opportunities
for researchers to undertake formal training. The advent of Vitae
and government funding through the UK Research Councils for implementing
the recommendations of the Sir Gareth Roberts review[75]
have significantly increased the opportunity for early career
researchers to participate in professional development opportunities,
including academic writing for publication and grant applications.
These courses generally include experience of the peer review
process. There are also examples of universities and other bodies
providing structured development opportunities in being a peer
reviewer, including encouraging early career researchers to set
up and run journal clubs.[76]
However, the numbers participating in these activities are fairly
small and with the end of "Roberts funding" in March
2011 even this level of provision may be may fall.
11. In recognition that peer review is important
to the development of leading researchers and that peer reviewing
is integral to academic publishing, all parties have a responsibility
to continually improve and assure the quality and robustness of
the system. We present a range of possible activities for different
stakeholders.
Editors
of journals using fair and transparent selection procedures for
peer reviewers. Providing more opportunities for training peer
reviewers, providing feedback to reviewers and mentoring opportunities
for new reviewers. Collectively agreeing and promoting the basic
principles of peer reviewing for publication. Considering the
use of more double-blind reviews to reduce bias.
Universities
providing more development opportunities for building peer reviewing
skills prior to researchers becoming peer reviewers for journals,
e.g. running journal clubs and training courses that include opportunities
to review papers and receive feedback. Peer review and its demands
on time should be taken into account in implementing equality
and diversity strategies, and its accomplishment recognised in
performance management and workload models.
Senior
academics and principal investigators taking active roles in mentoring
early career researchers in peer reviewing skill and providing
feedback. If delegating reviewing to others, providing critical
oversight and acknowledging their contribution. Encouraging and
recommending early career researchers to engage in the peer review
process.
Staff
developers and trainers ensuring that researchers are given opportunities
to develop peer review skills, especially in multi-disciplinary
and international settings which now underpin much of collaborative
research publication.
Early
career researchers taking responsibility for ensuring they understand
the peer review process from both the perspective of writing for
publication and being a peer reviewer. Taking opportunities to
develop their experience and skills relating to reviewing, including
asking peers and senior academics to comment on any papers/reviews
before submission. The Vitae Researcher Development Framework
highlights the need for resources through which researchers can
engage in their own professional development, including skills
for publishing and peer reviewing.[77]
THE VALUE
OF PEER
REVIEW IN
ADVANCING KNOWLEDGE
12. From the prospective of potential authors,
particularly early career researchers, the peer review process
has a valuable role to play in contributing critical comment and
feedback that provides useful quality benchmarks. It is one of
the ways in which researchers understand the requirements of publication
and improve their chances of being published. However, concerns
were expressed that reviewers can be seen as conservative and
especially, early career researchers may be better at playing
it safe, rather than submitting controversial or cutting edge
papers. There was also concern that reviewers may not be objective
when reviewing papers that conflict with their own views. This
impression, correct or otherwise, could stifle innovation, energy
and vitality in publication, especially from early career researchers.
IDENTIFYING REVIEWERS
WITH THE
REQUISITE SKILLS
AND KNOWLEDGE
13. The view of the all the respondents was that
the selection of peer reviewers is not set up as a fair or transparent
process. Understandably, editors will look for researchers who
are experts in their field and from institutions with a strong
research profile in the field. Typically, early career researchers
will become involved by either recommendation from a senior academic
or because they are known to the editor of a journal through their
publications. Open calls for journal reviewers exist, but are
not the main method, although it is a more common method for setting
up grant peer review panels.
14. In terms of equality and diversity, systems
that rely on networks and patronage may disadvantage specific
groups or individuals. For example, early career researchers working
in the less research intensive universities may find it hard to
break into the system unless they have a specialist research niche.
15. It is likely that the selection of peer reviewers
is predominantly on their research record. However, the ability
to give and receive feedback constructively is also important.
It is not apparent how this is taken into account when identifying
potential reviewers. Furthermore, as an important skill for research
leaders, it should be an integral part of the development of researchers.
FURTHER INFORMATION
16. Further information about Vitae and its activities
is available online at www.vitae.ac.uk.
DECLARATION OF
INTERESTS
17. There are no relevant interests to declare.
Vitae
May 2011
74 Rees, T (2011) "The Gendered Construction of
Scientific Excellence" Interdisciplinary Science Reviews,
Special Issue on Gender in Science, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 133-45
(in press - June) Back
75
Roberts, G (2001) SET for Success: the supply of people with science,
technology, engineering and mathematic skills, DUIS (BIS) www.vitae.ac.uk/roberts
Back
76
Training peer reviewers, Nature 443, 880 (18 October 2006) | 10.1038/nj7113-880b Back
77
The Researcher Development Framework describes the knowledge,
behaviours and attributes of successful researchers, including
those relating to publication. www.vitae.ac.uk/rdf The associated
Researcher Development Statement has been endorsed by the key
stakeholders in developing researchers, including RCUK, Universities
UK, the funding bodies and the Quality Assurance Agency www.viate.ac.uk/rds
Back
|