Innovating editorial practices: academic publishers at work.

IF 7.2 Q1 ETHICS
Research integrity and peer review Pub Date : 2020-08-05 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s41073-020-00097-w
Serge P J M Horbach, Willem Halffman
{"title":"Innovating editorial practices: academic publishers at work.","authors":"Serge P J M Horbach,&nbsp;Willem Halffman","doi":"10.1186/s41073-020-00097-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Triggered by a series of controversies and diversifying expectations of editorial practices, several innovative peer review procedures and supporting technologies have been proposed. However, adoption of these new initiatives seems slow. This raises questions about the wider conditions for peer review change and about the considerations that inform decisions to innovate. We set out to study the structure of commercial publishers' editorial process, to reveal how the benefits of peer review innovations are understood, and to describe the considerations that inform the implementation of innovations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We carried out field visits to the editorial office of two large academic publishers housing the editorial staff of several hundreds of journals, to study their editorial process, and interviewed editors not affiliated with large publishers. Field notes were transcribed and analysed using coding software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At the publishers we analysed, the decision-making structure seems to show both clear patterns of hierarchy and layering of the different editorial practices. While information about new initiatives circulates widely, their implementation depends on assessment of stakeholder's wishes, impact on reputation, efficiency and implementation costs, with final decisions left to managers at the top of the internal hierarchy. Main tensions arise between commercial and substantial arguments. The editorial process is closely connected to commercial practices of creating business value, and the very specific terms in which business value is understood, such as reputation considerations and the urge to increase efficiency. Journals independent of large commercial publishers tend to have less hierarchically structured processes, report more flexibility to implement innovations, and to a greater extent decouple commercial and editorial perspectives.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study demonstrates that peer review innovations are partly to be understood in light of commercial considerations related to reputation, efficiency and implementations costs. These arguments extend beyond previously studied topics in publishing economics, including publishers' choice for business or publication models and reach into the very heart of the editorial and peer review process.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-020-00097-w","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00097-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Background: Triggered by a series of controversies and diversifying expectations of editorial practices, several innovative peer review procedures and supporting technologies have been proposed. However, adoption of these new initiatives seems slow. This raises questions about the wider conditions for peer review change and about the considerations that inform decisions to innovate. We set out to study the structure of commercial publishers' editorial process, to reveal how the benefits of peer review innovations are understood, and to describe the considerations that inform the implementation of innovations.

Methods: We carried out field visits to the editorial office of two large academic publishers housing the editorial staff of several hundreds of journals, to study their editorial process, and interviewed editors not affiliated with large publishers. Field notes were transcribed and analysed using coding software.

Results: At the publishers we analysed, the decision-making structure seems to show both clear patterns of hierarchy and layering of the different editorial practices. While information about new initiatives circulates widely, their implementation depends on assessment of stakeholder's wishes, impact on reputation, efficiency and implementation costs, with final decisions left to managers at the top of the internal hierarchy. Main tensions arise between commercial and substantial arguments. The editorial process is closely connected to commercial practices of creating business value, and the very specific terms in which business value is understood, such as reputation considerations and the urge to increase efficiency. Journals independent of large commercial publishers tend to have less hierarchically structured processes, report more flexibility to implement innovations, and to a greater extent decouple commercial and editorial perspectives.

Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that peer review innovations are partly to be understood in light of commercial considerations related to reputation, efficiency and implementations costs. These arguments extend beyond previously studied topics in publishing economics, including publishers' choice for business or publication models and reach into the very heart of the editorial and peer review process.

Abstract Image

创新编辑实践:工作中的学术出版商。
背景:在一系列争议和编辑实践的多样化期望的触发下,一些创新的同行评议程序和支持技术被提出。然而,这些新举措的采用似乎很慢。这就提出了关于同行评议变化的更广泛条件以及关于为创新决策提供信息的考虑因素的问题。我们着手研究商业出版商编辑过程的结构,揭示如何理解同行评审创新的好处,并描述创新实施的考虑因素。方法:我们实地走访了两家大型学术出版商的编辑部,研究了他们的编辑过程,并采访了与大型出版商无关的编辑。使用编码软件对现场记录进行转录和分析。结果:在我们分析的出版商中,决策结构似乎显示了不同编辑实践的清晰层次和分层模式。虽然有关新举措的信息广泛传播,但它们的实施取决于对利益相关者意愿的评估,对声誉、效率和实施成本的影响,最终决策留给内部层级的高层管理人员。主要的紧张关系出现在商业争论和实质性争论之间。编辑过程与创造业务价值的商业实践以及理解业务价值的非常具体的术语密切相关,例如声誉考虑和提高效率的迫切需要。独立于大型商业出版商的期刊往往具有较少的层次结构流程,在实施创新方面具有更大的灵活性,并且在更大程度上将商业和编辑的观点分离开来。结论:我们的研究表明,同行评议创新在一定程度上应该从商业角度来理解,包括声誉、效率和实施成本。这些争论超出了出版经济学先前研究的主题,包括出版商对商业或出版模式的选择,并深入到编辑和同行评审过程的核心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信