We do not know enough about peer reviewing practices.
Little large-scale comparative evidence exists about practices of peer review in social sciences. Who reviews what, when, and how? Who is (not) invited to review? What are the practices of peer reviewing in terms of time invested, quality of comments, and tone employed? Are there discrepancies between receiving and supplying peer reviews? And to what extent do scholars engage in questionable peer reviewing practices (QPRPs), such as accepting to review articles for which they have a conflict of interest, engaging in de-blinding, or appropriating ideas found in articles they review? To what extent are individual attitudes towards open science (both in positive and negative terms) associated with these (questionable) reviewing practices?
The Peer Review Project is the first large-scale investigation about peer reviewing in social sciences worldwide. It is spearheaded by a consortium of scholars in eight countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, and UK). It is hosted by the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) and directed by Alessandro Nai (PI).
The Project is structured in three main research groups
→ Research Group I is working to collect data from peers, via a large-scale survey distributed to more than 150,000 scholars worldwide
→ Research Group II is working to collect data from journal editors
→ Research Group III is developing new computational approaches to leverage information available online, for instance in
Data collection is currently ongoing - come back for updates soon, and contact the PI (email@example.com) for more information!