Efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts – editors’ perspective

Main Article Content

Olgica Nedić
Ivana Drvenica
Marcel Ausloos
Aleksandar B Dekanski
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3122-8342

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a model for measuring the efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts by editors. The approach employed is based on the assumption that editorial aim is to manage publication with high efficiency, employing the least amount of editorial resources. Efficiency is defined in this research as a measure based on 7 variables. An on-line survey was constructed and editors of journals originating from Serbia regularly publishing articles in the field of chemistry were invited to participate. An evaluation of the model is given based on responses from 24 journals and 50 editors. With this investigation we aimed to contribute to our understanding of the peer-review process and, possibly, offer a tool to improve the "efficiency" in journal editing. The proposed protocol may be adapted by other journals in order to assess the managing potential of editors.

Article Details

How to Cite
[1]
O. Nedić, I. Drvenica, M. Ausloos, and A. B. Dekanski, “Efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts – editors’ perspective”, J. Serb. Chem. Soc., vol. 83, no. 12, pp. 1391-1405, Dec. 2018.
Section
Letters to the Editor

References

V. M. Nguyen, N. R. Haddaway, L. F. G. Gutowsky, A. D. M. Wilson, A. J. Gallagher, M. R. Donaldson, N. Hammerschlag, S. J. Cooke, PloS One 10 (2015) e0132557 (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139783)

X. Gu, K. L. Blackmore KL, Scientometrics 108 (2016) 693 (https://doi.org/10.1007-/s11192-016-1985-3)

J. Smedley J, OR Insight 22 (2009) 221 (https://doi.org/10.1057/ori.2009.11)

J. Galipeau, V. Barbour, P. Baskin, S. Bell-Syer, K. Cobey, M. Cumpston, J. Deeks, P. Garner, H. MacLehose, L. Shamseer, S. Straus, P. Tugwell, E. Wager, M. Winker, D. Moher, BMC Medicine 14 (2016) 16 (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0561-2)

E. Roohi, O. Mahian, Sci. Engin. Ethics 21 (2015) 809 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9549-5)

J. A. Garcia, R. Rodriguez-Sanchez, J. Fdez-Valdivia, Scientometrics 113 (2017) 45 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2470-3)

T. Jefferson, M. Rudin, S. B. Folse, F. Davidoff, Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2 (2007) MR000016 (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3)

K. Anderson, Inform. Serv. Use 35 (2015) 171 (https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-150776)

A. Weiskittel, Math. Comp. Forest. Nat.-Res. Sci. 7 (2015) 81 (http://mcfns.net/in-dex.php/Journal/article/view/MCFNS7.2_4)

M. J. Mrowinski, A. Fronczak, P. Fronczak, O. Nedic, M. Ausloos, Scientometrics 107 (2016) 271 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1871-z)

K. B. Sheehan, J. Comp.-Mediat. Commun. 6 (2001) JCMC621 (https://doi.org/10.-1111/¬j.1083-6101.2001.tb00117.x)

SurveyMonkey, http://s3.amazonaws.com/SurveyMonkeyFiles/Response_Rates.pdf (2009) accessed 23 Nov. 2015

A. Gunasekaran, C. Patel, E. Tirtiroglu E, Int. J. Operat. Product. Manag. 21 (2001) 71 (https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110358468)

P. Charan, R. Shankar, R. K. Baisya, Business Process Manag. J. 14 (2008) 512 (https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150810888055)

F. M. Del‐Rey‐Chamorro, R. Roy, B. van Wegen, A. Steele, J. Knowl. Manag. 7 (2003) 46 (https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270310477289)

J. Swaak J, A. Lansink, E. Heeren, B. Hendriks, P. Kalff, J-W. den Oudsten, R. Bohmer, R. Bakker, C. Verwijs, 59th AEPF-Tagung conference, Bremen, Germany, 2000

W. D. Yu, P. L. Chang, S. J. Liu, International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction 2006 (ISARC 2006), Tokyo, Japan, Proceedings, 2006, p. 124 (https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2006/0026)

W. D. Yu, P. L. Chang, S. H. Yao, S. J. Liu, Construct. Manag. Econom. 27 (2009) 733 (https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190903074978)

R. K. F. Clark, Br. Dent. J. 213 (2012) 153 (https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.721)

L. Tite, S. Schroter, J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 61 (2007) 9 (https://doi.org/-10.1136/¬jech.2006.049817)

C. D. Bailey, D. R. Hermanson, T. J. Louwers, J. Account. Edu. 26 (2008) 55 (https://¬www.jstor.org/stable/41948838)

M. A. Zaharie, C. L. Osoian, Eur. Manag. J. 34 (2016) 69 (https://doi.org/¬10.1016/-j.emj.2015.12.004)

S. M. Green, M. L. Callaham, Ann. Emerg. Med. 57 (2011) 149 (https://doi.org/10.1016¬/j.annemergmed.2010.08.005)

M. Ausloos, O. Nedic, A. Fronczak, P. Fronczak, Scientometrics 106 (2016) 347 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1705-4)

C. A. Geithner, A. N. Pollastro, Adv. Physiol. Educ. 40 (2016) 38 (https://doi.org/-10.1152/advan.00071.2015)

26. M. Lamont, J. Guetzkow, Quality Is Recognized by Peer Review Panels: The Case of the Humanities, in Research Assessment in the Humanities. M. Ochsner, S. E. Hug, H-D. Daniel, Eds., Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2016, p. 31 (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_4)

W. Wang, X. Kong, J. Zhang, Z. Chen, F. Xia, X. Wang, SpringerPlus 5:903 (2016) (https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2601-y)

C. Herteliu, M. Ausloos, B. V. Ileanu, G. Rotundo, T. Andrei, Publications 5 (2017) 15 (https://doi.org/10.3390/publications5020015)