Publons Academy Module 2

Academic Publishing and Peer Review

[slide 1​]
In this module of Publons Academy, we discuss the principles, forms and
functions of peer review, and practical steps on how to get involved.

[slide 2]
We will help you understand pre-publication reviews. Introduce the different
models you may encounter.
We will discuss post-publication reviews, explaining how to write and submit
them,
and show you how Publons can help you connect with journal editors.

[slide 3]
Let’s set the scene with the ‘timeline of research’

[slide 4]
1. A study is completed, written up and submitted to a journal.
2. The research is peer reviewed and accepted.
3. The research is published.
4. The research is cited and built-upon in the world.

Most people understand the idea of writing up a study and getting it published.
However, the significance of the paper is also decided at two separate times:

[slide 5]
The first is before a paper is published. This is what we call pre-publication
review.

This involves a group of experts (usually 2 or 3 per paper) deciding on the

1
[slide 6]
The second is after publication, where its significance, impact, flaws,
implications, and reproducibility can be more widely assessed.

This is post-publication review.

[slide 7]
Let’s first look at the process of pre-publication review. Going from research to
publication has a few more steps than our initial diagram showed:

[Slide 8-21]
1. First, the author, let’s call her Julia, submits a paper
2. The journal editor, let’s say, Andrew, does an initial screen for suitability.
Papers can be rejected here if they don’t fit the aims and scope of the
journal.
3. Then appropriate peer reviewers are approached.
4. The editor may send requests to many different people, attempting to
recruit 2 or 3 referees for the paper.
5. This part of the process can see severe delays
6. Finally, the Editor secures reviewers for the paper.
7. Peer reviewers - that’s you - review the paper, providing expert insight,
comments and sometimes a decision recommendation.
8. This is another source of delay, which we can make our individual
contributions to reducing.
9. Andrew reads the reviews and makes a decision on Julia’s paper – a
reject, request for revisions, or acceptance.
10.…And so we don’t imply all delays in the review process are down to
reviewers, here is another area where delays can occur!
11. Julia then revises her paper, according to the recommendations of the
reviewers, makes typographical and presentation alterations to suit
Andrew’s specific journal, and resubmits.
12. Andrew will check that all required changes have been made then the
paper is Accepted and published.
13. Sometimes the reviewers are called on for another round of review,
decision and revision, until eventual Accept or Reject.
[slide 22]
There are different ways pre-publication review happens in real life, so let’s
look at the three common forms:

2
[slide 23]
1. Single-Blind
2. Double-Blind
3. Open

[slide 24]
Single blind is the most common type of review. The names of reviewers are
hidden from the authors, but the reviewers see author names and institutions.

[slide 25]
Benefits of this method are:
● Hiding the reviewer’s identity; which means reviewers can be more
honest in their feedback, without fear of criticism and reprisals from the
author and their associates.
● Knowing the author identity gives the reviewer greater context for the
article.

[slide 26]
Disadvantages to this method are:
● Bias toward the author. The possibility of pre-judging the paper based on
experience of previous work or applying unethical biases over gender or
geography.
● Bias from working in a similar field; the reviewer may act in a
competitive fashion, delaying work being published, or be unnecessarily
harsh and critical.

[slide 27]
Double-blind hides the names of both reviewers and authors from each other.
This is most common in social science and humanities.

[slide 28]
Benefits to this method are:
● Reduction of bias, as the focus is primarily on the research.
● Protection against personal criticism from both the author and reviewer.

3
[slide 29]
Disadvantages are:
● Managing and maintaining double-blindness, especially in small niche
fields.
● It adds additional workloads and responsibilities to editors
● Anonymity can lead to impersonal, harsh or critical feedback – peer
review is supposed to be critical but should be composed in a fair and
constructive manner.

[slide 30]
Open review is where both parties know the other’s identity at some stage of
the review process.

Open reviewing is great for you as a developing reviewer and researcher. You
can learn from the reviews of others, see how they formulate their critiques
and even how authors respond to the feedback to show how a paper develops
from submission to publication.

[slide 31]
Some benefits associated with open review include:
● Greater accountability and amicability between parties
● More constructive feedback.
● More efficient review
● A wider range of reviewers
● Greater insight into the scientific process
● Enables peer review activity to be recorded and used in professional
resumes and impact-measurement – which is one of the core purposes
of Publons!

[slide 32]
Disadvantages to this method include:
● Fear of reprisals and negative reactions after a negative review
● Reluctance to criticise work of more senior researchers, or potential
collaborators

[slide 33]
Being aware of these forms of review and the differences between them will
help you make an informed decision about reviews you undertake in the
future.

4
[slide 34]
Now let’s move from open review to its close relative, post-publication peer
review.

[slide 35 video]
Publons Academy is teaching you to write pre-publication reviews through
practicing on published papers - so you will be writing post-publication reviews
but in the format of a pre-publication review.

[slide 36]
Re-visiting our diagram of the publication process, we see that research can be
publicly analysed after it is published.

The great part about post-publication review is that the whole academic
community can contribute, rather than a select group of people, and the
additional insights are part of the public record.

You might have read an especially interesting paper in your field that you wish
you'd been asked to comment on - well you can as a post-publication review!

[slide 37]
Post-Publication review takes the approach of a full practical appraisal over any
time-span, from days to years after publication, which can include assessing:
● How each section fits into the context of the field;
● How relevant the paper truly is to practicing researchers;
● How it builds upon other research you frequently refer to in your work;
● How useful it is for the field, and what its practical applications can be.

[slide 38]
You can reference work that has built on, reinforces or contradicts a study that
was published AFTER the original paper.

Remember, a post-publication review can be an important part of research

[slide 39 video]
The resource documents in this module include examples of pre-publication
and post-publication reviews so you can compare between them and see their

5
differences.

[slide 40]
Let’s look at how to complete post-publication reviews on Publons as well as
add any pre-publication reviews you’ve written for journals.

[slide 41]
Academy reviews will be added to your Publons account as post-publication
reviews, and publicly displayed by default. You can change your review
preferences at the bottom of this module and from the Review settings page
on your private dashboard.

You can also select the amount of detail shown about any article you have
reviewed

[slide 42 video]
To submit reviews on Publons, go to your dashboard under the ‘HOME’ tab
● Click ‘Add a Review’
● Choose whether it’s a pre- or post-publication review
● Post-publication reviews require a title and one form of ID or URL,
before writing in your review.
● For pre-publication reviews you’ve done, you can:
● Click on the ‘Pre-Publication Review’ button
● And copy in the details
● Alternatively, you can forward any ‘thank-you for reviewing’ email
receipts to [email protected] and have them added to your profile.

[slide 43]
Now, to be able to put all this information into practice, you will need to be
invited to review.
This brings us to the final part of this module: How to use Publons to connect
with journal editors.

[slide 44 video]
Journal editors use Publons to find active reviewers.

To make yourself visible:

6
 ● Once you find the journals you’d like to review for, click the journal’s
page.
● Scroll down to the blue button that says, “Click to let them know”.
● If you change your mind, you can click the blue button again.
● Add yourself to a range of journals within your field of expertise to help
build your academic profile.

Now, when you graduate from the Academy, you’ll be ready to put yourself in
front of journal editors through the Publons platform. Remember to keep your
profile up to date so editors know what your area of expertise is.

[slide 46]
Let’s summarise what you achieved in this session:

[​slide 47]
● You are prepared for the practical steps of the peer review process
● You can make informed decisions about the journals you review for,
based on the models of review that they use.
● You can understand the difference between pre- and post-publication
review
● You know the steps to submit post-publication reviews as a way to share
your expertise with your research community
● You can use Publons to connect with Editors to help you get started on
independent pre-publication peer reviews of your own.