TY - JOUR
T1 - Early career researchers and their authorship and peer review beliefs and practices
T2 - An international study
AU - Jamali, Hamid R.
AU - Nicholas, David
AU - Watkinson, Anthony
AU - Abrizah, Abdullah
AU - Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca
AU - Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Cherifa
AU - Xu, Jie
AU - Polezhaeva, Tatiana
AU - Herman, Eti
AU - Świgon, Marzena
PY - 2020/4
Y1 - 2020/4
N2 - This article reports on the findings of an international online survey of early career researchers (ECRs) with regard to their authorship and peer review, attitudes, and practices, which sought to discover how the new wave of researchers were utilizing these key aspects of the scholarly communications system. A questionnaire was developed on the back of a 3-year longitudinal, qualitative study and was distributed through publisher lists, social media networks, university networks, and specialist ECR membership organizations. Identical English, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Spanish, and French versions of the questionnaire were used. Results from 1,600 respondents demonstrated that 82.7% had co-authored a paper, and most had performed a variety of authorship tasks. Almost half the respondents reported being subject to various authorship policies, although a quarter said they were not aware of any such policies. Almost all Chinese ECRs reported being subject to authorship policies, but only a third of UK ECRs reported the same. Three-quarters of ECRs had experience in responding to peer review, and half had been peer reviewers. Half the respondents had a good experience of review and viewed it as a valuable way to improve their authorship skills. However, there was some criticism of some shortcoming such as lengthy peer review and superficial or uninformed comments by reviewers. Double-blind review was the preferred methodology, and there were few suggestions for how to improve the review process.
AB - This article reports on the findings of an international online survey of early career researchers (ECRs) with regard to their authorship and peer review, attitudes, and practices, which sought to discover how the new wave of researchers were utilizing these key aspects of the scholarly communications system. A questionnaire was developed on the back of a 3-year longitudinal, qualitative study and was distributed through publisher lists, social media networks, university networks, and specialist ECR membership organizations. Identical English, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Spanish, and French versions of the questionnaire were used. Results from 1,600 respondents demonstrated that 82.7% had co-authored a paper, and most had performed a variety of authorship tasks. Almost half the respondents reported being subject to various authorship policies, although a quarter said they were not aware of any such policies. Almost all Chinese ECRs reported being subject to authorship policies, but only a third of UK ECRs reported the same. Three-quarters of ECRs had experience in responding to peer review, and half had been peer reviewers. Half the respondents had a good experience of review and viewed it as a valuable way to improve their authorship skills. However, there was some criticism of some shortcoming such as lengthy peer review and superficial or uninformed comments by reviewers. Double-blind review was the preferred methodology, and there were few suggestions for how to improve the review process.
KW - authorship
KW - early career researchers
KW - peer review
KW - reward and recognition
KW - scholarly communications
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85077143089&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85077143089&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/leap.1283
DO - 10.1002/leap.1283
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85077143089
VL - 33
SP - 142
EP - 152
JO - Learned Publishing
JF - Learned Publishing
SN - 0953-1513
IS - 2
ER -