Finding out what authors, editors and reviewers really think of peer review Taylor & Francis have just published the findings in 'Peer review in 2015: a global view'http://tandf.msgfocus.com/c/14qB2zXKomxzUdAkz6FaLK, which brings together the survey results and focus group analysis into one of the largest peer review studies in recent years. Within the academic community, peer review is widely recognized as being at the heart of scholarly research. However faith in peer review's integrity is of ongoing and increasing concern to many. It is imperative that publishers (and academic editors) of peer-reviewed scholarly research learn from each other, working together to improve practices in areas such as ethical issues, training and data transparency. http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Peer-R... Key findings from 'Peer review in 2015: a global view' * Most researchers rate the benefit of the peer review process towards improving their article as 8 or above out of 10. * Most researchers wait between one and six months for an article they've written to undergo peer review, yet authors (not reviewers / editors) think up to two months is reasonable. * There is a strong preference for double blind review among all respondents, with a rating of 8 or above out of 10. * Single blind review is an unpopular choice but is more acceptable to STM researchers than HSS and, of those, editors and authors are more in favor than reviewers. * There are balanced views across the options of open, open and published, and post-publication review; with a mean rating of between 5 and 6 out of 10 in many cases (with HSS editors less supportive than STM). If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch with us at marketing@tandfindia.commailto:marketing@tandfindia.com. Best wishes, Shafina Segon Marketing Head - South Asia Journals & Online Resources shafina.segon@tandfindia.commailto:shafina.segon@tandfindia.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.