Company News

Open peer review (OPR) is a relatively new way of reviewing work before publication, but what exactly does it entail?

With scientific research becoming increasingly specialized, it can be difficult for journals to find experts to carry out peer review. Asking authors to suggest their own reviewers can therefore be mutually beneficial: journals save time and resources searching for an appropriate reviewer, and the author can support this process by providing contacts from their network.

Peer review acts as a quality check on academic literature, defined as ‘a formal system whereby a piece of academic work is scrutinised by people who were not involved in its creation but are considered knowledgeable about the subject’. 

Submitting your article to a journal is only the first step in the process to getting published.  In the vast majority of cases, papers will require at the very least some further changes or review based on the feedback from the journal editor and reviewers.

One of the issues that is most often discussed in the context of peer review is anonymity. This article discusses whether or not it is better and more effective for authors to know the names of their reviewers.

This article provides tips for becoming an effective peer reviewer.

Acting as a peer reviewer is a serious responsibility, your chance to both evaluate (hopefully critically and positively) the research work of others in your field as well as to contribute to the development and overall quality of the scientific literature.

It’s normal to become discouraged when your academic work gets turned down by a target journal. A way to manage academic rejection is to think about the Kübler-Ross model for the five stages of grief, but for academic publishing.

As well as acting as a peer-reviewer for scientific papers in your field, its also common to be asked to review grant applications. Our Charlesworth Knowledge workshops provide training in how to perform reviews effectively and ethically.

As part of our peer review training at Charlesworth Knowledge, we aim to help young researchers be as effective as possible when participating in this process. It can be daunting as well as flattering to receive a request from a journal to work on a paper; at the same time, how can you quickly and easily put together an effective set of comments to send back to an editor and be a ‘useful’ peer reviewer?

Managing and responding to reviewer comments can be difficult. Our experts can help you decode the responses that come back from journals about your papers.

Many of your papers and grant applications are likely to be rejected, perhaps more than once, before they are finally accepted or funded. The important question is how can you manage this, and turn it into a positive to advance your career. This article provides some tips.

This article explains the five stages peer reviewers go through when tasked with reviewing: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

Researchers often ask us: 'How can my paper be speeded up through the publication process?' Learn the inside story on academic publishing from Charlesworth.

The final proofing stage of production is hugely important. It's essential to carefully check the final version of your paper at this stage to make sure no spelling, formatting mistakes or other errors have crept in during production.

Your next paper is more likely to pass successfully through peer review if the results and conclusions of your work are ‘as expected’.

This article explains how registered reports work.

This article explains how to write an effective response to reviews letter or document for a revision decision on your manuscript.

This article discusses ways to communicate with the journal editor in case of untoward or unfavourable situations with your manuscript.

Is getting someone else to write peer reviews for you unethical? This article discusses the practice of ghost peer review.