1.
Editor-mediated Peer Review
Panel on integrity, ethics and peer review
APE 2019
Elisa De Ranieri,
Editor-in-Chief, Nature Communications
e.deranieri@nature.com
16 January 2019

2.
1
Creating a more robust peer review process
• Author contribution statements, 2009
• Double blind peer review, 2015
• Transparent peer review, 2016
• Under Consideration, 2017
• Reviewer recognition, 2018
Editor-mediated peer review is evolving
We can do more in 2019
Publishing editorial letters?
Registered Reports?
Support diversity?
Research ethics and integrity
Publishing ethics and integrity
Community ethics and integrity
Illustrations from Pixabay

3.
2
The role of our editors
We work with the research communities.
Develop quality and reproducibility standards for doing
and reporting research.
Applied via editorial policy and using checklists during
review process.
Full-time, professional editors are independent.
Less competing interests and more objectivity in decisions.
Reviewer selection essential to maintain integrity of published material: our editors
have the competence (and time!) to provide a high-quality peer review experience.
“There was a substantial
improvement in the reporting of
risks of bias in in vivo research in
NPG journals following a change in
editorial policy.” Macleod et al.
https://doi.org/10.1101/187245

4.
3
Transparency, accountability and trust
There is trust in this system, but we need to keep up.
Can transparency coexist with
temporarily withholding information
(e.g. double blind model)?
Editors
Reviewers
Authors
Readers
Identity
Content
Process