Page 18 - Straive eBook: Redefining Your Peer Review Experience

18 Straive | Redefining Your Peer Review Experience

Publication

We have finally reached an editorial decision that our article is acceptable for publication — at
last! Yet peer review doesn’t stop here: the rise of ‘open’ peer review means that journals are
experimenting with different forms of transparency, in some cases publishing reviewer reports,
in others reviewer names (usually on an opt-in basis). Even in more traditional journals,
post-publication commenting in the form of letters to the editor, social media commentary,
and even citations can be considered forms of peer review. Yet despite the new ease of
commentary, few publishers encourage authors to address these post-publication reviews
outside of the confines of a formal Correction, Erratum, or Retraction notice, with the notable
exceptions of F1000 Research and related open research platforms. In a modern, digital-first
publishing environment, it would be fascinating to experiment with articles allowing authors to
address post- publication comments and continue to refine their work without needing to go
through the full, formal peer review process each time.

Another post-publication activity is the rejected
article analysis. While not a core part of every
publishers’ processes, some do track what
happens to articles rejected from journals within Suggestions
their portfolios. This information can be used
• Track post-publication
to investigate a journal’s scope or editorial
thresholds (articles rejected and subsequently comments on articles as part
of peer review and consider
published in competitor titles may need either inviting authors to respond
a scope review or editor training), or to make a
business case for a new ‘cascade’ title that
allows scientifically sound articles below the
editorial threshold for existing titles to be
published.