Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies Peer Review Practice & Interactive Forum Ross H. McLeod Indonesia Project, ANU 2 March 2009

BIES background In continuous publication since June 1965, three issues per year Originally in-house at ANU Shifted to T&F in 2001 Online publication seen of key importance Introduction of Interactive Forum also aims to keep us at the cutting-edge of journal publishing

In continuous publication since June 1965, three issues per year

Originally in-house at ANU

Shifted to T&F in 2001

Online publication seen of key importance

Introduction of Interactive Forum also aims to keep us at the cutting-edge of journal publishing

Peer review process One of the first T&F journals to migrate to Manuscript Central Process Article submitted by author Checked by Associate Editor Passed to me Quick perusal that topic is appropriate and that quality appears acceptable Important not to waste time of referees If obviously poor quality, I reject the article and explain reasons for doing so to author

One of the first T&F journals to migrate to Manuscript Central

Process

Article submitted by author

Checked by Associate Editor

Passed to me

Quick perusal that topic is appropriate and that quality appears acceptable

Important not to waste time of referees

If obviously poor quality, I reject the article and explain reasons for doing so to author

Peer review process Double blind refereeing system Requires a minimum two referee reports Often invite three potential referees Some will be unavailable No problem if end up with 3 I may suspect the paper will be controversial, so would like additional opinion… … especially if I don’t have much expertise in the area of the paper Also if I fear we have been given a poor paper by a ‘ good/reputable’ author

Double blind refereeing system

Requires a minimum two referee reports

Often invite three potential referees

Some will be unavailable

No problem if end up with 3

I may suspect the paper will be controversial, so would like additional opinion…

… especially if I don’t have much expertise in the area of the paper

Also if I fear we have been given a poor paper by a ‘ good/reputable’ author

Peer review process Choosing referees Rely partly on our editorial and advisory board members Also on other people I know to be working in the relevant field Often, the list of references in the paper is a source of names of people working in the field (but be wary of academic incest!) Useful to steadily widen our pool of referees to increase profile of the journal (access to new authors and readers; boost citations)

Choosing referees

Rely partly on our editorial and advisory board members

Also on other people I know to be working in the relevant field

Often, the list of references in the paper is a source of names of people working in the field (but be wary of academic incest!)

Useful to steadily widen our pool of referees to increase profile of the journal (access to new authors and readers; boost citations)

Peer review process Biggest problem with the referees is lack of consistency Some reports very solid and detailed; some very brief and unconvincing When there are very different views, I need to make my own decision I give greater weight to the referees who put more effort into the job If I feel confident about evaluating the subject matter myself, my own evaluation will have a heavy weight … although the referees’ reports sometimes make me realise my own initial evaluation was unsound

Biggest problem with the referees is lack of consistency

Some reports very solid and detailed; some very brief and unconvincing

When there are very different views, I need to make my own decision

I give greater weight to the referees who put more effort into the job

If I feel confident about evaluating the subject matter myself, my own evaluation will have a heavy weight

… although the referees’ reports sometimes make me realise my own initial evaluation was unsound

Peer review process Outcomes The decision is never an unqualified “Accept” Even the best papers can be improved on the basis of referee and/or editor comments Many papers we publish get a decision of “Accept subject to minor modification” Many more get “Revise and resubmit”, and receive extensive comments from referees and myself And of course several are rejected In recent times we have rejected about two-thirds of the articles submitted to us

Outcomes

The decision is never an unqualified “Accept”

Even the best papers can be improved on the basis of referee and/or editor comments

Many papers we publish get a decision of “Accept subject to minor modification”

Many more get “Revise and resubmit”, and receive extensive comments from referees and myself

And of course several are rejected

In recent times we have rejected about two-thirds of the articles submitted to us

Peer review process Reviewer relations We try not to burden referees with more than one or two reviews per year We acknowledge all of our referees in the second issue each year (allowing them to opt out if they wish)

Reviewer relations

We try not to burden referees with more than one or two reviews per year

We acknowledge all of our referees in the second issue each year (allowing them to opt out if they wish)

BIES Interactive Forum

Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies Peer Review Practice & Interactive Forum Ross H. McLeod Indonesia Project, ANU 2 March 2009