Incentives that Drive the Editorial Peer Review process
Publication Date
3-27-2024
Abstract
Objectives:
To offer insights for authors and prospective authors on the editorial peer review process.
Methods:
Case series. Observations from service as an associate editor at four peer reviewed journals, a peer reviewer of at least 60 manuscripts, and author of over 70 peer reviewed journal articles.
Results:
Editors, peer reviewers, and authors are all volunteers who assure the continued building of our evidence base. While they share some of the same values and incentives, their roles sometimes conflict due to divergent incentives. These divergences can often lead to misunderstandings by authors or prospective authors. By understanding these different incentives, authors can better appreciate feedback from editorial peer reviewers and editors.
Conclusion:
Convergent and divergent incentives can either strengthen or disrupt the editorial peer review process. Through a better understanding of this network of incentives, authors can function more effectively in the editorial peer review process.
Document Type
Article
Language
English
Keywords
Authorship, Editors, Editorial Peer Review, Evidence Based Practice, Professionalism, Publishing, Motivation
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
Recommended Citation
Eldredge, J. D. (2024). Incentives that Drive the Editorial Peer Review process. Hypothesis: Research Journal for Health Information Professionals, 36(1). https://doi.org/10.18060/27697
Publication Title
Hypothesis
