Accelerated Peer Review and Paper Processing Models in Academic Publishing

被引:10
作者
Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A. [1 ]
Yamada, Yuki [2 ]
机构
[1] 3011-2 Ikenobe, Miki, Kagawa 7610799, Japan
[2] Kyushu Univ, Fac Arts & Sci, Nishi Ku, 744 Motooka, Fukuoka 8190395, Japan
关键词
Academic publishing; Open access (OA); Peer-to-peer; Peer review; Quality; ETHICS;
D O I
10.1007/s12109-022-09891-4
中图分类号
G25 [图书馆学、图书馆事业]; G35 [情报学、情报工作];
学科分类号
1205 ; 120501 ;
摘要
Some journals and publishers offer a free or paid rapid peer review service. In the latter case, such a service is offered at a premium, i.e., for an additional fee, and authors receive, in return, a privileged service, namely faster peer review. In the cut-throat world of survival in academia, the difference of a few weeks or months in terms of speed of peer review and publication may bring untold benefits to authors that manage to benefit from accelerated peer review. We examine the deontological aspects behind this two-tier peer review system, including some positive, but mainly negative, aspects. Some paid accelerated peer review services thrive. We examine the paid accelerated peer review services by Taylor & Francis, Future Medicine Ltd., Elsevier, and two stand-alone journals that are OASPA members. This suggests that there is a demand, and thus market, for faster peer review. However, this privilege risks creating a two-tiered system that may divide academics between those who can pay versus those who cannot. We recommend that those papers that have benefited from accelerated peer review clearly indicate this in the published papers, as either a disclaimer or within the acknowledgements, for maximum transparency of the peer review and publication process.
引用
收藏
页码:599 / 611
页数:13
相关论文
共 18 条
[2]   Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission [J].
Bourne, Philip E. ;
Polka, Jessica K. ;
Vale, Ronald D. ;
Kiley, Robert .
PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY, 2017, 13 (05)
[3]   Early uptake of research findings after fast-track publication [J].
Ghali, WA ;
Cornuz, J .
LANCET, 2000, 355 (9203) :579-580
[4]  
Grossmann Alexander, 2021, F1000Res, V10, P20, DOI 10.12688/f1000research.27468.1
[5]   Review of the Ethics and Etiquettes of Time Management of Manuscript Peer Review [J].
Kumar M.N. .
Journal of Academic Ethics, 2014, 12 (4) :333-346
[6]   The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era [J].
Lariviere, Vincent ;
Haustein, Stefanie ;
Mongeon, Philippe .
PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (06)
[7]   MATTHEW EFFECT IN SCIENCE [J].
MERTON, RK .
SCIENCE, 1968, 159 (3810) :56-&
[8]   How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals [J].
Nguyen, Vivian M. ;
Haddaway, Neal R. ;
Gutowsky, Lee F. G. ;
Wilson, Alexander D. M. ;
Gallagher, Austin J. ;
Donaldson, Michael R. ;
Hammerschlag, Neil ;
Cooke, Steven J. .
PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (08)
[9]   Back to the Beginning - The Journal is Dead, Long Live Science [J].
Nwagwu, Williams E. ;
Onyancha, Bosire .
JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP, 2015, 41 (05) :669-679
[10]   A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior [J].
Scanff, Alexandre ;
Naudet, Florian ;
Cristea, Ioana A. ;
Moher, David ;
Bishop, Dorothy V. M. ;
Locher, Clara .
PLOS BIOLOGY, 2021, 19 (11)