Main Article Content
The rate of scientific information generation has increased tremendously in the last few years as a result of the increase in both the number of researchers, studies and papers, and the number of scientific journals. In 2015, approximately 1.3 million articles were submitted to Elsevier journals by 1.8 million authors (it is estimated that there were 7.8 million active researchers worldwide in that year). The number of reviewers who evaluated these manuscripts were 0.7 million. According to the survey conducted by Wiley in 2015, 22 million research hours was spent annually for reviewing for the top 12 producing publishers. The most recent data released by Clarivate Analytics in 2017 estimate that 2 million scientific reports are published annually, imposing a large demand for the increase in the peer-review capacity to manage all scientific contributions. An additional complication is that the burden of peer-reviewing falls disproportionately on academics from the US and Europe, since researchers from Asia, Africa and South America are rarely called to act as peer-reviewers
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors grant to the Publisher the following rights to the manuscript, including any supplemental material, and any parts, extracts or elements thereof:
- the right to reproduce and distribute the Manuscript in printed form, including print-on-demand;
- the right to produce prepublications, reprints, and special editions of the Manuscript;
- the right to translate the Manuscript into other languages;
- the right to reproduce the Manuscript using photomechanical or similar means including, but not limited to photocopy, and the right to distribute these reproductions;
- the right to reproduce and distribute the Manuscript electronically or optically on any and all data carriers or storage media – especially in machine readable/digitalized form on data carriers such as hard drive, CD-Rom, DVD, Blu-ray Disc (BD), Mini-Disk, data tape – and the right to reproduce and distribute the Article via these data carriers;
- the right to store the Manuscript in databases, including online databases, and the right of transmission of the Manuscript in all technical systems and modes;
- the right to make the Manuscript available to the public or to closed user groups on individual demand, for use on monitors or other readers (including e-books), and in printable form for the user, either via the internet, other online services, or via internal or external networks.
Elsevier, https://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-publishing-a-look-at-the-numbers-and-more, Accessed October 10, 2019.
Warne V. Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learn Publ, 2016;29 (1): 41-50.
Clarivate Analytics, https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/blog/publons-addressing-challenges-peer-review/, Accessed 1 October, 2019.
The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/01/peer-review-is-essential-to-good-science-its-time-to-credit-expert-reviewers, Accessed 15 October 2019.
Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Trinquart L. The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise. PLoS ONE, 2016; 11(11): e0166387.
Publons, https://publons.com, Accessed 10 October 2019.
Science Open, http://about.scienceopen.com/peer-review-guidelines/, Accessed 10 October 2019.
Reviewer Credits, http://reviewercredits.com, Accessed 10 October 2019.
Callaham ML, Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med. 2007; 4: e40.
Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? JR Soc Med. 2008; 101: 507-514.
Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;328(7441):673.
Callaham M, McCulloch C. Longitudinal Trends in the Performance of Scientific Peer Reviewers, Ann Emerg Med. 2011; 57 (2) 141-148.
Patel J. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Med 2014, 12:128.
Dekanski A, Drvenica I, Nedić O. Peer-review process in journals dealing with chemistry and related subjects published in Serbia. Chem Ind Chem Eng Q . 2016; 22 (4): 491−501.
COST action TD1306: New Frontiers of Peer Review (PEERE), http://www.peere.org/, Accessed 15 October 2019.
Centar za promociju nauke, https://www.cpn.rs/programi/seminar-o-recenziranju/, Accessed 15 October 2019.
Konzorcijum biblioteka Srbije za objedinjenu nabavku, KoBSON, https://kobson.nb.rs/predavanja/predavanja.37.html, Accessed 15 October, 2019.