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

Authors

  • Olgica Nedić Institute for the Application of Nuclear Energy - (INEP), University of Belgrade, Banatska 31b, Belgrade
  • Ivana Drvenica Institute for Medical Research, University of Belgrade, Dr Subotica 4, Belgrade
  • Marcel Ausloos School of Business, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, United Kingdom and Group of Researchers for Applications of Physics in Economy and Sociology (GRAPES), rue de la Belle Jardiniere 483, Angleur
  • Aleksandar B Dekanski Institute of Chemistry, Technology and Metallurgy, Department of Electrochemistry, University of Belgrade, Karnegijeva 4, Belgrade

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2298/JSC180531066N

Keywords:

survey, editorial experience, Parsimonious model

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.

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)

Published

2018-12-29

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.

Issue

Section

Letters to the Editor