Early Career Researchers on all Aspects of Peer Review: A Deep Dive Into the Data

Abstract

ABSTRACT The Harbingers study of early career researchers (ECRs) and their work life and scholarly communications began by studying generational—Millennial—change (H‐1), then moved to pandemic change (H‐2) and is now investigating another change agent—artificial intelligence (AI). This paper from the study constitutes a deep dive into the peer review attitudes and practices of 91 international ECRs from all disciplines. Depth interviews were the main means by which data was collected, and questions covered ECRs as reviewers, authors and readers, and are described in their own words. Main findings are: (1) ECRs proved to be a highly experienced in peer review; (2) There is more trust in peer review than distrust in it, but there are concerns; (3) Peer review is something that arts and humanities ECRs are unfamiliar with or much concerned about; (4) A sizeable majority of ECRs thought peer review could be improved, with anonymity/double‐blind reviewing topping the list; (5) The majority view was that AI will have an impact on peer review and that it would be beneficial; (6) little has changed since the last Harbingers study, except for AI, which is seen to be transformative. We believe that few studies have drilled down so deeply and widely in respect to ECRs.

Ähnliche Arbeiten