Issue 3

RevUp_header-alt_copy 

In this issue we report on the recent Sense About Science and Elsevier Peer Review Survey where more than 4,000 reviewers responded to questions such as “Should peer review detect fraud and misconduct?” and “What does it do for Science?” We also look at how Elsevier uses its own Reviewer Feedback Programme (RFP) to work towards improving the peer review experience. Susannah Megow, from Elsevier’s Training Desk, highlights how Scopus can help in the peer review process and our Director Publication Process Development, Egbert van Wezenbeek informs us how his team is exploring ways to simplify and streamline the reviewer search process in EES, Elsevier’s online submission and peer review system.

Download the PDF version


Sign up to receive future issues of Reviewers’ Update, our quarterly e-update for reviewers




CONTENT

Debating Peer Review
More than 4,000 reviewers respond to major survey
• 90% review because they believe they are playing an active role in the community
• 91% say that their last paper was improved through peer review. Just 15% felt that ‘formal’ peer review could be replaced by usage statistics

Reviewing the Review Process – Elsevier’s Reviewer Feedback Programme
Editors understand that attracting and retaining the best reviewers is based, in part, on how reviewers feel about the experience. But what do reviewers want and expect, and how do they really feel about reviewing? We ask Adrian Mulligan, Associate Director of Research & Academic Relations, and Laura Hassink, VP Strategy and Journal Services, about Elsevier’s Reviewer Feedback Programme

How can Scopus help the Peer Review Process?
Read more about the ways in which Scopus can help with the review process now that it is integrated in to EES, our online submission and peer review system

Helping Reviewers Manage their Workload
Find out how Elsevier is working towards streamlining the reviewer selection process, protecting and enhancing the peer review process and continuing to recognise the valuable work done by reviewers