Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts

Gary S. McDowell, John Knutsen, June Graham, Sarah K. Oelker, Rebeccah S. Lijek
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/617373
Gary S. McDowell
1The Future of Research, Inc., Abington, MA 02351
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: rlijek@mtholyoke.edu garymcdow@gmail.com info@futureofresearch.org
John Knutsen
2Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
June Graham
3Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA 01075
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah K. Oelker
3Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA 01075
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rebeccah S. Lijek
3Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA 01075
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: rlijek@mtholyoke.edu garymcdow@gmail.com info@futureofresearch.org
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

The goal of this study is to shed light on the involvement of early career researchers (ECRs) during peer review of manuscripts for publication in journals. In particular, we sought to better understand how commonly ECRs contribute ideas and/or text to peer review reports when they are not the invited reviewer (“co-review”), and how commonly ECRs do not receive named credit to the journal editorial staff for these scholarly efforts (“ghostwrite”). First, we evaluated 1,952 publications in the peer-reviewed literature generated by exhaustive search terms that combined synonyms of “early career researcher” and “peer review” and found no previous studies about ECRs ghostwriting peer review reports. We then surveyed 498 researchers about their experiences with, and opinions about, co-reviewing and ghostwriting as ECRs. Three quarters of those surveyed have co-reviewed and most find it to be a beneficial (95% agree) and ethical (73% agree) form of training in peer review. Co-reviewing is the second most commonly reported form of training in peer review besides receiving reviews on one’s own papers. Half of survey respondents have ghostwritten a peer review report, despite the 4/5ths majority opinion that ghostwriting is unethical. Survey respondents report that the three major barriers to including co-reviewer names on peer review reports are: a lack of communication between PIs and ECRs; a false belief that co-authorship is for manuscripts but not peer review reports; and prohibitive journal policies that are out of alignment with current practice and opinions about best practice. We therefore propose recommendations for changing this status quo, to discourage unethical ghostwriting of peer review reports and encourage quality co-reviewing experiences as normal training in peer review.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted April 26, 2019.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts
Gary S. McDowell, John Knutsen, June Graham, Sarah K. Oelker, Rebeccah S. Lijek
bioRxiv 617373; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/617373
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts
Gary S. McDowell, John Knutsen, June Graham, Sarah K. Oelker, Rebeccah S. Lijek
bioRxiv 617373; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/617373

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Scientific Communication and Education
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4087)
  • Biochemistry (8766)
  • Bioengineering (6480)
  • Bioinformatics (23346)
  • Biophysics (11751)
  • Cancer Biology (9149)
  • Cell Biology (13255)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (7417)
  • Ecology (11369)
  • Epidemiology (2066)
  • Evolutionary Biology (15088)
  • Genetics (10402)
  • Genomics (14011)
  • Immunology (9122)
  • Microbiology (22050)
  • Molecular Biology (8780)
  • Neuroscience (47373)
  • Paleontology (350)
  • Pathology (1420)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2482)
  • Physiology (3704)
  • Plant Biology (8050)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1431)
  • Synthetic Biology (2209)
  • Systems Biology (6016)
  • Zoology (1250)