Peer review survey results

Transparency, Recognition, and Innovation in Peer Review in the Life Sciences (February 2018)

For more information, go to the main event page.

We ran two surveys in advance of the Peer Review meeting: one more general survey for all stakeholders (originally appeared on this page, closed 2018-02-06 with 295 responses) and one on Peer Feedback for authors and reviewers (appeared on the Peer Feedback page, closed 2018-01-31 with 370 responses). Both surveys were anonymous and no personally identifiable information was collected. Selected results from both surveys can be found in the presentation below.

All data CC-0; images CC-BY.

A slide titled General attitudes toward peer review displays two charts. On the left, a pie chart shows satisfaction levels: 24% very satisfied, 41% satisfied, 25% dissatisfied, 6% very dissatisfied, 1% dont know, 3% not answered. On the right, a bar chart shows satisfaction levels over time from an open peer review survey. The bottom includes citation details and hashtags: #bioPeerReview and ASAPbio.

Bar graph showing responses to problems in peer review for life sciences manuscripts. Issues include lack of constructive reviews, time-wasting, insufficient feedback, and bias. Each issue is ranked as a major or minor problem by respondents.

Bar chart comparing preferences and experiences of various peer review types, like journal peer review and open reports. Color-coded bars show agreement levels and roles, including author, reviewer, and editor. #bioPeerReview and ASAPbio logos at the bottom.

Bar chart titled Reviewers of a manuscript should be expected to review the following components with categories: novelty, importance, figures, interpretation, and more. Responses range from strongly agree to dont know, dominated by red and white bars.

An infographic with several pie charts and bar graphs titled Credit and training for peer review from a Peer Feedback survey. It displays survey responses on topics like monetary compensation for peer review and training adequacy for researchers.

Two line graphs and a bar graph showing data from peer review surveys. The first graph shows journals where papers were submitted, and the second shows rounds of revision. The bar graph shows journal submissions from a peer feedback survey.

Infographic about informal feedback in peer review. Includes bar charts on usefulness, time consumption, and ease of feedback, a line graph on manuscript colleagues, and a survey on request frequency for feedback outside ones lab.

$The image contains two graphs titled Finding an appropriate journal. The left bar chart shows the fraction of submissions (357 responses) to different journals, peaking at 2. The right line graph depicts the difficulty in matching papers (358 responses), decreasing from 1 (not difficult) to 5 (extremely difficult).$

Infographic titled Preprints & review transparency – author perspective. Includes two pie charts on preprint posting habits and a line graph on comfort with public peer reviews, with or without referee names. Charts depict survey data by ASAPbio.

Line graph titled Transparency – reviewer perspective showing comfort levels on a scale from 1 (Very uncomfortable) to 5 (Very comfortable). It compares three scenarios of peer review transparency: posting publicly, consulting with others, and consulting directly with authors.

Download .pptx for these slides
Download .xlsx for Peer Review survey
Download .xlsx for Peer Feedback survey

Questions/comments? Please email [email protected]

Subscribe to the ASAPbio newsletter

Receive the latest news about ASAPbio, preprints, and open peer review every 1-2 months. Your email will not be shared. Review our privacy policy.