Mcleod Mar09 TandF


Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mcleod Mar09 TandF

  1. 1. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies Peer Review Practice & Interactive Forum Ross H. McLeod Indonesia Project, ANU 2 March 2009
  2. 2. BIES background <ul><li>In continuous publication since June 1965, three issues per year </li></ul><ul><li>Originally in-house at ANU </li></ul><ul><li>Shifted to T&F in 2001 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Online publication seen of key importance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Introduction of Interactive Forum also aims to keep us at the cutting-edge of journal publishing </li></ul>
  3. 3. Peer review process <ul><li>One of the first T&F journals to migrate to Manuscript Central </li></ul><ul><li>Process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Article submitted by author </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Checked by Associate Editor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Passed to me </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quick perusal that topic is appropriate and that quality appears acceptable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Important not to waste time of referees </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>If obviously poor quality, I reject the article and explain reasons for doing so to author </li></ul></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Peer review process <ul><li>Double blind refereeing system </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires a minimum two referee reports </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Often invite three potential referees </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Some will be unavailable </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No problem if end up with 3 </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>I may suspect the paper will be controversial, so would like additional opinion… </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>… especially if I don’t have much expertise in the area of the paper </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Also if I fear we have been given a poor paper by a ‘ good/reputable’ author </li></ul></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Peer review process <ul><li>Choosing referees </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rely partly on our editorial and advisory board members </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Also on other people I know to be working in the relevant field </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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!) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Useful to steadily widen our pool of referees to increase profile of the journal (access to new authors and readers; boost citations) </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Peer review process <ul><li>Biggest problem with the referees is lack of consistency </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Some reports very solid and detailed; some very brief and unconvincing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>When there are very different views, I need to make my own decision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>I give greater weight to the referees who put more effort into the job </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If I feel confident about evaluating the subject matter myself, my own evaluation will have a heavy weight </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>… although the referees’ reports sometimes make me realise my own initial evaluation was unsound </li></ul></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Peer review process <ul><li>Outcomes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The decision is never an unqualified “Accept” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Even the best papers can be improved on the basis of referee and/or editor comments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Many papers we publish get a decision of “Accept subject to minor modification” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Many more get “Revise and resubmit”, and receive extensive comments from referees and myself </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>And of course several are rejected </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In recent times we have rejected about two-thirds of the articles submitted to us </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Peer review process <ul><li>Reviewer relations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We try not to burden referees with more than one or two reviews per year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We acknowledge all of our referees in the second issue each year (allowing them to opt out if they wish) </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. BIES Interactive Forum
  10. 16. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies Peer Review Practice & Interactive Forum Ross H. McLeod Indonesia Project, ANU 2 March 2009