Innovating editorial practices: academic publishers at work
Innovating editorial practices: academic publishers at work
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s41073-020-00097-w
复制
发表时间：
2020-08-05
影响因子：
6.1
通讯作者：
Halffman, Willem
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Horbach, Serge P. J. M.;Halffman, Willem
背景引发了一系列的争议和多样化的编辑实践的期望，一些创新的同行评审程序和支持技术已经提出。然而，这些新举措的实施似乎进展缓慢。这就提出了关于同行审查变化的更广泛条件以及为创新决策提供信息的考虑因素的问题。我们着手研究商业出版商的编辑过程的结构，揭示如何理解同行评议创新的好处，并描述通知创新的实施的考虑因素。方法我们进行了实地访问的两个大型学术出版社的编辑部，数百种期刊的编辑人员，研究他们的编辑过程，并采访了编辑不属于大型出版社。使用编码软件转录和分析了现场记录。结果在我们分析的出版商，决策结构似乎显示出清晰的模式的层次结构和层次的不同的编辑实践。虽然有关新举措的信息广为传播，但其实施取决于对利益攸关方的愿望、对声誉的影响、效率和实施成本的评估，最终决定留给内部最高层的管理人员。主要的紧张关系出现在商业和实质性争论之间。编辑过程与创造商业价值的商业惯例以及理解商业价值的非常具体的术语密切相关，例如声誉考虑和提高效率的冲动。独立于大型商业出版商的期刊往往有较少的层次结构化流程，报告更灵活地实施创新，并在更大程度上解耦商业和编辑观点。结论我们的研究表明，同行评议创新的一部分是要理解的声誉，效率和实施成本相关的商业考虑。这些论点超出了出版经济学以前研究的主题，包括出版商对商业或出版模式的选择，并触及编辑和同行评议过程的核心。
Background Triggered by a series of controversies and diversifying expectations of editorial practices, several innovative peer review procedures and supporting technologies have been proposed. However, adoption of these new initiatives seems slow. This raises questions about the wider conditions for peer review change and about the considerations that inform decisions to innovate. We set out to study the structure of commercial publishers' editorial process, to reveal how the benefits of peer review innovations are understood, and to describe the considerations that inform the implementation of innovations. Methods We carried out field visits to the editorial office of two large academic publishers housing the editorial staff of several hundreds of journals, to study their editorial process, and interviewed editors not affiliated with large publishers. Field notes were transcribed and analysed using coding software. Results At the publishers we analysed, the decision-making structure seems to show both clear patterns of hierarchy and layering of the different editorial practices. While information about new initiatives circulates widely, their implementation depends on assessment of stakeholder's wishes, impact on reputation, efficiency and implementation costs, with final decisions left to managers at the top of the internal hierarchy. Main tensions arise between commercial and substantial arguments. The editorial process is closely connected to commercial practices of creating business value, and the very specific terms in which business value is understood, such as reputation considerations and the urge to increase efficiency. Journals independent of large commercial publishers tend to have less hierarchically structured processes, report more flexibility to implement innovations, and to a greater extent decouple commercial and editorial perspectives. Conclusion Our study demonstrates that peer review innovations are partly to be understood in light of commercial considerations related to reputation, efficiency and implementations costs. These arguments extend beyond previously studied topics in publishing economics, including publishers' choice for business or publication models and reach into the very heart of the editorial and peer review process.