Statistics
On this page we present some descriptive statistics on our database containing 516 journals. The diagrams below show how frequently each editorial procedure is used by journals in our database. Following our short questionnaire, the statistics are grouped in four categories: timing and selectiveness, openness of review, specialisation of review, and technological support in review.
At what stage of the publication process does review take place?
Post-publication review
|
Pre-publication review
|
No review takes place
|
Pre-submission review (including registered reports)
|
What quality criteria does your journal use for peer review?
Methodological rigour and correctness
|
Anticipated impact (either within or outside of science)
|
Novelty
|
Fit with journal's scope
|
Other
|
What type of reviewers are included in your journal's peer review process?
Commercial review platforms
|
Editor-in-chief
|
Wider community / readers
|
Editorial committee
|
External reviewers suggested and selected by editor(s)
|
External reviewers suggested by authors
|
To what extent are authors anonimised in your journal's review process?
Author identities are blinded to editor and reviewer
|
Author identities are blinded to reviewer but known to editor
|
Author identities are known to editor and reviewer
|
To what extent are reviewers anonimised in your journal's review process?
Reviewers are anonymous (both to authors and other reviewers as well as to readers of the published manuscript)
|
Reviewer identities are known to other reviewers of the same manuscript
|
Reviewer identities are known to the authors
|
Reviewer identities are known to the readers of the published manuscript
|
To what extent are review reports accessible?
Review reports are accessible to authors and editors
|
Review reports are accessible to other reviewers
|
Review reports are accessible to readers of the published manuscript
|
Review reports are publicly accessible
|
To what extent does your journal's review process allow for interaction between reviewers and authors?
No direct interaction between authors and reviewers is facilitated apart from communicating review reports and author responses via editors
|
Interaction between reviewers is facilitated
|
Author's responses to review reports are communicated to the reviewer
|
Interaction between authors and reviewers is facilitated (on top of formal review reports and formal responses to review reports)
|
To what extent is your journal's review process structured?
Structured: Review occurs through mandatory forms or checklists to be filled out by reviewers
|
Unstructured: reviewers are free to choose how to organise their review and are not presented questions or criteria for judgement
|
Semi-structured: Reviewers are guided by some (open) questions or are presented several criteria for judgement
|
To what extent does your journal's review process use specialist statistical review?
Not applicable (statistics does not play a role in my journal's research area)
|
No special attention is given to statistical review
|
Incorporated in review (assessing statistics is part of reviewer's and editor's tasks)
|
Statistical review is performed by an additional, specialist reviewer
|
Statistics review is performed through automatic computer software
|
To what extent does your journal accept or use reviews from external sources?
No reviews from external sources are used
|
Reviews from other (partner) journals accompanying manuscripts rejected elsewhere are used
|
Reviews from commercial review platforms are used
|
Reviews performed by the wider community (i.e. not by invited or targeted reviewers) are used (e.g. reviews on public forums)
|
Other
|
What forms of digital tools are used in your journal's review process?
No digital tools are used
|
Digital tools to check references are used (e.g. to check for references to retracted articles, or references to articles published in predatory journals)
|
Plagiarism detection software is used
|
Digital tools to assess validity or consistency of statistics are used
|
Digital tools to detect image manipulation are used
|
Other
|
To what extent does your journal's review process allow for reader commentary after publication of a manuscript?
No direct reader commentary is facilitated
|
Reader commentary is facilitated on the journal's website
|
Out-of-channel reader commentary is facilitated (e.g. by providing links to commentary on other platforms such as PubPeer)
|
