Resources
Essential Readings for Authors
PLOS Review Guidelines
PLOS ONE utilizes a single-anonymized peer review process, where reviewers know the authors' identities while their own identities remain anonymous. Reviewers assess the validity, significance, and originality of submissions, offering constructive feedback for improvement. They are required to declare any competing interests and maintain confidentiality throughout the process. PLOS ONE provides detailed guidance on assessing manuscripts, responding to reviewer comments, and navigating the editorial process through their resources.
Link: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/reviewer-guidelines
Sample Peer Review Report
The reviewer provides an extensive critique of the manuscript "Sensitivity of hyperspectral narrowband and multispectral broadband indices to crop evapotranspiration, transpiration, and soil evaporation" by Marshall, Thenkabail, Biggs, and Post. While the study is relevant and thorough in parts, the reviewer raises major concerns, particularly regarding the method used for partitioning latent energy (LE) and its impact on results. The critique emphasizes the need for clearer methodological explanations, theoretical justifications, and improvements in data handling. The reviewer suggests that major revisions are required before the paper can be considered for publication.
Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016819231630106X
Step-by-step Guide to Article Publishing
Springer Nature provides a comprehensive guide for authors looking to publish their research, offering a step-by-step process for manuscript submission, peer review, and final publication. It highlights the benefits of open access publishing, such as increased visibility and citations, while also outlining available funding options for covering fees. The platform supports authors with various services like editing, formatting, and translation to ensure a smooth publication process. With over 3,000 journals to choose from, researchers can find the right journal for their work and access resources tailored to their needs.
Link: https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/publish-an-article
The Golden Rule of Reviewing
This article discusses the importance of prompt peer review to expedite the publication process. Peer review operates as a system of reciprocal altruism, where scientists serve as authors, reviewers, and editors. Delays in submitting reviews are often the main bottleneck in publishing. To mitigate this, reviewers should follow the "Golden Rule of Reviewing": provide timely, thorough, and constructive critiques as soon as possible. Doing so benefits the entire scientific community by reducing publication delays and ensuring high-quality peer reviews.
Understanding the Peer Review Process (Taylor & Francis)
The Taylor & Francis guide outlines the peer review process, emphasizing its role in evaluating research quality and providing constructive feedback to authors. It explains the different types of peer review (single-blind, double-blind, open) and highlights the importance of selecting reputable journals for publication. The guide also discusses how authors should respond to reviewer comments and encourages researchers to participate in peer reviewing as a way to contribute to the scientific community.
Link: https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/peer-review/
Writing a Journal Manuscript
Publishing your research results is essential for gaining recognition and sharing your ideas with the scientific community. This tutorial helps guide scientists through the process of writing an effective journal article, covering key aspects such as background reading, study design, structuring the manuscript, and preparing figures. It aims to ensure that researchers present their work in the best possible way to reach a global audience.
WAME Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications, Revised May 31, 2023
This revised statement updates the January 2023 recommendations on chatbots in scholarly publishing. These Recommendations are intended to inform editors and help them develop policies for using chatbots in papers published in their journals. The goal is to inform editors, authors, and reviewers on best practices and the need for manuscript screening tools to ensure content authenticity.
DOI
A DOI, or Digital Object Identifier, is a unique and persistent code assigned to scholarly works, like articles, papers, and some books, to permanently identify them. DOIs persist even if the location of the content changes, ensuring reliable access to the publication.
Link: https://www.doi.org/
COPE
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is an international organization established to provide advice and guidance on best practices for dealing with ethical issues in journal publishing. Originally focused on editors and publishers of academic journals, COPE's membership has expanded to include universities, research institutions, and individuals involved in publication ethics. COPE offers various resources and guidance, including: (i) Policies and practices on good publication ethics; (ii) An eLearning course on topics such as plagiarism, falsification, authorship, conflicts of interest, and misconduct; and (iii) Participation in discussions on current ethical issues.
EQUATOR network
This user-friendly tool assists authors in identifying their study paradigm and directs them to the appropriate reporting guidelines. Encompassing all major guidelines, the tool offers a step-by-step approach like a choose-your-own-adventure book (as described by a Lancet editor).
ICJME: Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process
These recommendations serve as a guide for authors in understanding their responsibilities in the submissions and peer-review process.
Academic Journals Are a Lucrative Scam – and We’re Determined to Change That
The article highlights the issues surrounding academic publishing, particularly the monopoly held by major commercial publishers like Elsevier and Wiley, which charge universities exorbitant fees for journal subscriptions and access. Researchers provide much of the labor for free, yet these publishers still profit significantly. The article discusses the rise of 'diamond' open access, a model where journals charge neither authors nor readers, as a viable alternative. However, academics face challenges in moving away from established journals due to career advancement pressures.
Addressing Race and Racism in Editorial Policy
The introduction humorously references a segment by comedian Bill Maher to illustrate the unproven yet strongly held belief that articles published in scholarly journals influence readers' thoughts and behaviors. The author reflects on how editors and publishers, including those at Advances in Nursing Science, select content with the hope and belief that it will have an impact, even if this influence can't be fully measured or proven. It's an underlying assumption that drives editorial decisions in academic publishing.
Link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nae2.12040
Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals
The survey of 116 health research journals found that only 35% provided online instructions for peer reviewers, and less than half of those mentioned reporting guidelines. While established guidelines like CONSORT, PRISMA, and STROBE were referenced, they were typically suggested rather than clearly integrated into the review process. The study concluded that journals are not fully leveraging reporting guidelines to enhance manuscript quality and recommended broader use of resources like the EQUATOR Network to effectively support reviewers.
Ethics in Scientific Publishing: Avoiding Plagiarism and Ensuring Integrity
This article highlights the importance of ethics in scientific publishing, focusing on avoiding plagiarism, ensuring data integrity, and maintaining transparency in authorship and conflicts of interest. It also addresses the role of peer review and the responsibilities of journals and institutions in promoting ethical standards to preserve trust in research.
Link: https://publishingresearchconsortium.com/ethics-in-scientific-publishing/
How Digital Publishing is Radically Changing the Landscape of Scientific Research
Digital publishing is revolutionizing scientific research by enabling faster dissemination, open access, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Key trends include preprints, enhanced data transparency, multimedia integration, and AI-driven processes, all accelerating global scientific progress. Despite challenges like predatory journals, digital platforms make research more accessible and impactful.
Link: https://publishingresearchconsortium.com/digital-publishing-scientific-research/
Peer Review
The 2019 Peer Review Survey conducted by Sense about Science and Elsevier highlights several key findings. Researchers expressed increased satisfaction with the peer review process but are concerned about maintaining quality amid growing research outputs. They emphasize the need for better reviewer training, clearer guidelines, and recognition from institutions. Public understanding of peer review remains low, and researchers call for more transparent communication and accessible explanations of reviewed content. Additionally, there is a call to balance technology in peer review without losing the benefits of human judgment.
Link: https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/?activityType=peer-review
Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: What it is and How it Works
The article from Visionlearning explains the peer review process, its history, and its role in scientific publishing. It describes how peer reviewers, who are specialists in specific fields, evaluate research for journals, funding agencies, and academic institutions. Peer reviewers assess the methods, data analysis, and conclusions drawn by authors, ensuring the quality and accuracy of published research. The article also highlights the implications of peer review, the potential for bias, and the evolving nature of the system, including open-access peer review models.
So Does the Public Finally Get Peer Review?
The article describes a 10-year collaboration by Sense about Science focused on raising public awareness about the role of evidence in policy, news, and society. It highlights early challenges, such as public misunderstanding of peer review and skepticism from scientists regarding sharing the process. By 2005, the organization produced a public guide explaining peer review as a tool for understanding scientific claims. Despite initial concerns, the collaboration demonstrated that the public can grasp peer review's role in scrutinizing research, even if the system is imperfect.
Link: https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/so-does-the-public-finally-get-peer-review/
The Future of Scientific Publishing: 7 Trends to Watch in 2024
This article outlines key trends in scientific publishing for 2024, including the rise of open access, increased use of preprints, blockchain for securing intellectual property, and AI-powered peer review. It also highlights the push for open data to improve transparency and reproducibility, the emergence of decentralized publishing platforms, and efforts to combat predatory journals, ensuring ethical standards in research.
Link: https://publishingresearchconsortium.com/the-future-of-scientific-publishing/
The Ups and Downs of Peer Review
This article outlines the history and evolution of scientific peer review, starting from the 17th century with the Journal des Scavans to modern-day practices. It discusses the benefits and challenges of peer review, such as bias and delays, while acknowledging its role in maintaining scientific quality. The authors propose changes to the system and suggest creating an international online training program to accredit referees, aiming to improve the effectiveness of peer review and its contribution to scientific publishing.
Link: https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00104.2006
The Wiley Network Blog
Explore a wide range of resources for librarians, researchers, educators, students, and professionals. Find Wiley product information, news, and updates from the education, academic, and research sectors, along with tips, support materials, and more to assist you in your field.
Link: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/network?_gl=11itdwrm_gcl_au*OTAzNzAxMTk1LjE3MjI5NDk5MTU
Tips from a Journal Editor: Being a Good Reviewer
The article by R. Michael Alvarez provides valuable tips for being a good peer reviewer in academic publishing. Key points include evaluating the quality of research, avoiding comments on whether a paper fits the journal unless explicitly requested, focusing on significant criticisms rather than minor errors, and giving constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. Reviewers are encouraged to focus on the integrity and rigor of the research.
Link: https://blog.oup.com/2015/08/good-peer-reviewer-tips-journal-editor/
Research Integrity
This course focuses on research integrity within academic publishing. It provides insights into maintaining ethical standards throughout the research process, from study design to publication. Participants will learn about key issues such as avoiding plagiarism, data manipulation, and the importance of transparency in research. The course also covers the roles and responsibilities of authors, reviewers, and editors in upholding research integrity.
Link: https://webofscienceacademy.clarivate.com/learn/catalog
Wiley Research Academy
Wiley Research Academy is an online platform designed to help researchers develop essential skills for successful publishing. It offers interactive courses and resources covering topics like research ethics, manuscript preparation, peer review, and open access, guiding researchers through the entire publication process to improve their chances of getting published.
Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics
These guidelines support researchers, editors, peer reviewers, and others involved in scholarly publishing, providing an updated summary of best practices for research integrity and publishing ethics. They reflect new updates including author name changes, AI tool usage, and adoption of the NISO Peer Review Terminology Standard.
Link: https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.html
Checklist for Statistical Assessment of Medical Papers: The CHAMP Statement
The CHAMP (Checklist for Statistical Assessment of Medical Papers) statement addresses the ongoing issue of statistical errors in medical research papers, emphasizing the need for a systematic approach to assessing the design, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of studies.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is committed to educating and supporting editors, publishers, universities, research institutes, and all those involved in publication ethics.
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)
The Institute of Medicine defines healthcare quality as the extent to which services improve health outcomes, aligned with professional knowledge. CONSORT guidelines help improve reporting and applicability in clinical practice.
Council of Asian Science Editors (CASE)
The Council of Asian Science Editors (CASE) is focused on improving the quality of scientific research journals in Asia. Their vision is to increase the visibility and international standing of these journals. The mission of CASE is to contribute to the development of science and human well-being, with a goal to enhance journal quality by consulting regulations on editing and sharing information about publishing processes. CASE supports the growth and professionalization of science editing across Asia.
EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network
The EQUATOR Network is an international initiative that seeks to improve the reliability and value of published health research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting and the wider use of robust reporting guidelines. It is the first coordinated global effort to systematically address the problems of inadequate reporting, building on the work done by individual groups over the past 15 years.
Link: https://www.equator-network.org/toolkits/peer-reviewing-research/
International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM)
STM is a global organization representing academic publishers, promoting high standards in research communication. Its members publish over 66% of all journal articles across science, technology, medicine, and humanities. STM advocates for innovation in publishing, supports new technologies and universal standards, and contributes to international consultations on research policies. The organization aims to ensure that published research is trustworthy, high-quality, and accessible, working with over 140 members, including major commercial publishers, learned societies, and university presses.
Link: http://www.stm-assoc.org
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
ICMJE developed these recommendations to review best practices and ethical standards in the conduct and reporting of research and other material published in medical journals. They aim to help authors, editors, and others involved in peer review and biomedical publishing create and distribute accurate, clear, reproducible, and unbiased medical journal articles. These recommendations also provide useful insights into the medical editing and publishing process for the media, patients, families, and general readers.
Link: http://www.icmje.org
International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication
The International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication aims to encourage research into the quality and credibility of peer review and scientific publishing. The congress focuses on establishing an evidence base that scientists can use to improve the conduct, reporting, and dissemination of scientific research.
International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (ISRCTN)
The ISRCTN registry is an internationally recognized clinical trial registry that accepts all clinical research studies, providing unique identification numbers for publication and ensuring transparency in research. It helps reduce selective reporting by making all study records freely accessible and searchable. ISRCTN welcomes submissions from any location and accepts studies prospectively or retrospectively, covering a wide range of topics including healthcare, education, and workplace safety, with an emphasis on human health and well-being outcomes.
Link: http://isrctn.org
Office of Research Integrity (ORI)
The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) oversees Public Health Service (PHS) research integrity activities, excluding FDA-related tasks. As part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), ORI focuses on detecting, investigating, and preventing research misconduct. It monitors investigations, recommends actions, assists with appeals, and provides technical support to institutions. ORI also promotes responsible conduct of research through policies, education, and evaluations, while managing whistleblower protections and responding to Freedom of Information Act requests.
Link: https://ori.hhs.gov
Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals
ICMJE developed these recommendations to review best practices and ethical standards in the conduct and reporting of research and other material published in medical journals. The goal is to help authors, editors, and others involved in peer review and biomedical publishing create and distribute accurate, clear, reproducible, and unbiased medical journal articles. These recommendations may also provide useful insights into the medical editing and publishing process for the media, patients, families, and general readers.
Resources for Journal Authors, Editors, and Reviewers (SAGE Publications)
SAGE Publications offers comprehensive resources to support authors, editors, and reviewers. Their Author Gateway provides guidance on publishing processes, ethics, and promoting articles. The Editor Gateway assists editors in managing journals and ensuring high-quality publications. The Reviewer Gateway details the peer review process, ethical responsibilities, and benefits for reviewers. Additional resources include free courses, a blog for research highlights, and insights into understanding journal metrics.
Link: https://au.sagepub.com/en-gb/oce/resources-journal-authors-and-editors
Sense about Science (SAS)
Sense about Science is an independent charity that promotes the public interest in sound science and evidence.
The Journal of Scholarly Publishing (JSP)
The Journal of Scholarly Publishing (JSP) is an essential resource for authors, editors, marketers, and publishers in academia. It addresses challenges in scholarly publishing arising from technological advancements, funding changes, and innovations in the field. JSP offers valuable insights into the evolving landscape of academic publishing and is available in both print and online formats.
Wiley Author Services
This is an author guide outlining the publishing process at Wiley. It provides step-by-step assistance, from finding the right journal and ensuring open access compliance to preparing, submitting, and tracking manuscripts. Authors can access support for language editing, peer review, licensing, and open access options. The guide also covers promoting the published work and tracking progress through production, making the publishing journey efficient and user-friendly.
Link: https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/index.html
Wiley Peer Review Policy
The content explains Wiley's ethical guidelines for peer reviewers, emphasizing confidentiality, adherence to COPE standards, and proper use of AI tools. It allows the transfer of manuscripts and peer review reports between Wiley journals, while ensuring transparency and confidentiality in the peer review process. Reviewers and authors must respect these guidelines unless an open review policy is in place.
ICJME: Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) developed these recommendations to define the author’s role and accountability for what is published, the criteria for authorship, and the policies for non-author contributors and use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology in the production of submitted works.
Link: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/
ICJME: Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process
These recommendations serve as a guide for authors in understanding their responsibilities in the submissions and peer-review process.
ORCID number
An ORCID ID or Open Researcher and Contributor ID is a unique, lifelong digital identifier for you as an author/contributor. It is a tool that can track research output from various databases and consolidate them into a single profile.
Link: https://orcid.org/
A Focused Toolkit for Journal Editors and Publishers: Building Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) in Editorial Roles and Peer Review
This toolkit aims to enhance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) in editorial roles and peer review within scholarly publishing. It provides actionable recommendations for creating an inclusive culture, collecting demographic data, broad recruitment, training reviewers, and fostering equity in the peer review process. The toolkit emphasizes that these practices are essential to improving the integrity and fairness of scholarly communications.
Link: https://c4disc.pubpub.org/toolkit-editors-and-publishers
A Guide to Peer Review in Ecology and Evolution, British Ecological Society
The British Ecological Society, the oldest ecological society, has been publishing scientific journals since 1913, beginning with the Journal of Ecology. With over 20,000 published articles, the Society has played a significant role in advancing the field. The peer review process, dating back to 1665, ensures the integrity of scientific literature through rigorous evaluation. Though peer review is not perfect, it offers numerous benefits to both authors and reviewers. Authors receive constructive feedback and validation, while reviewers develop critical thinking, expand their knowledge, and improve their article preparation skills.
Link: https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Publ_Peer-Review-Booklet.pdf
Equitable Peer Review (Indiana University Bloomington)
The Indiana University Bloomington Libraries offer a toolkit for equitable peer review, focusing on reducing bias and improving transparency in the review process. The toolkit includes resources such as rubrics for reviewing humanities and science articles, as well as free peer review training courses. These include guides from Sense about Science and Publons/Clarivate, which help prepare early-career researchers for the peer review process. These resources aim to support fair, objective, and effective peer reviews.
Link: https://guides.libraries.indiana.edu/peerreview/training
How to Survive Peer Review (The British Medical Journal)
This book serves as a practical guide to peer review, helping readers navigate the process effectively, whether as authors or reviewers. It provides straightforward, actionable advice on becoming a competent reviewer and emphasizes the importance of peer review in scientific careers. The guide covers both formal and informal peer review settings, offering insights to help users understand the review process and improve their critical thinking skills, without delving into heavy academic theory.
Link: https://www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/attachments/resources/2011/07/wager.pdf
How-to Guides (Emerald Publishing)
Emerald Publishing offers resources for reviewers that include guidance on becoming a peer reviewer, understanding the peer review process, and principles for effective reviewing. It provides detailed support on delivering constructive feedback, ethical considerations, and tips for writing impactful reviews. Additionally, the platform provides tailored resources for authors, editors, librarians, and researchers, offering tools for publishing, promoting work, and managing research data.
Peer Review: How to Get It Right – 10 Tips
Brian Lucey's article offers 10 practical tips for writing effective peer reviews. He emphasizes professionalism, constructiveness, and scientific rigor. Reviewers should provide helpful feedback, focus on content rather than style, and remain empathetic and open-minded. Time management is crucial, as timely reviews keep the publication process efficient. Lucey encourages reviewers to stay organized and suggests structuring reviews logically, providing clear critiques and suggestions for improvement. Lastly, empathy and respect for authors are essential throughout the process.