<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Palatino Linotype";
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 5 5 3 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-GB;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Apologies for cross posting<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Oxford, April 2013<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-fareast-language:AR-SA'>Taylor & Francis survey: authors value rigorous peer review, even if it takes time<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>In the sixth in a series of Press Releases on the themes and findings of the Open Access Survey, Taylor & Francis investigates authors’ preferred methods of peer review suitable for their research. Taylor & Francis / Routledge journals, including those that are part of the Open programme, benefit from Editor-led rigorous peer review and we wanted to understand the value and importance of this service to our author base.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%'>Authors’ views on the peer review process<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>Respondents were asked about the kind of peer review they find the most suitable for their research when publishing an open access article. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>Findings from the survey show that <b>45%</b> of all respondents would ‘always’ value a ‘<i>rigorous assessment of the merit and novelty of their article with constructive comments for its improvement</i>’. Adding those who would ‘often’ prefer this more traditional style of peer review takes this figure up to <b>78%</b>. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>Moving down the scale of rigour, to peer review that ‘<i>reviews the technical soundness of my research without any judgement on its novelty or interest’</i>, there is a huge fall in support; only <b>11%</b> of authors would ‘always’ find this suitable for their Open Access articles. Similarly the number of supporters for an ‘<i>accelerated peer review [process] with fewer rounds of revision</i>’ shrinks, with only <b>9%</b> of respondents ‘always’ accepting this method. And lastly, only <b>7%</b> of respondents would ‘always’ find ‘<i>post-publication peer review after a basic check by invited reviewers</i>’ appropriate. In fact, more than a quarter of authors would ‘never’ value ‘<i>post-publication peer review</i>’; contrastingly, the number of those who answered ‘never’ to traditional peer review was too small to plot on the chart. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:AR-SA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><img width=584 height=373 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01CE47E5.02A406B0" alt="Peer Review"><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:AR-SA'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:AR-SA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:AR-SA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b>Regional and Subject Differences<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>Across all subjects and regions, the majority of authors felt that rigorous peer review would be the most suitable refereeing style for the bulk of their OA research papers (selecting ‘always’ or ‘often’). Authors from Library and Information Science seem least wedded to the traditional style of peer review but even here 72% of authors said they would ‘always’ or ‘often’ find this rigorous peer review suitable for their OA articles. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>Peer review in the style of PLoS One, which ‘<i>reviews the technical soundness of my research without any judgement on its novelty or interest’</i>, is the second most popular type of review for most subject areas, finding the largest level of support from Library and Information Scientists (50% choosing ‘always’ or ‘often’). <i> <o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><i>‘Accelerated peer review [process] with fewer rounds of revision in (the style of eLIfe)</i>’ was the second most popular form of peer review in seven subject areas, most notably Business and Economics where 41% of respondents chose ‘always’ or ‘often’ for this option. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'> ‘<i>Post-publication peer review</i>’ in the style of f1000 Research found most favour from authors in Chemistry and Materials Science, where it saw a similar level of support as the other two types of alternative peer review models (33-37% selecting ‘always’ or ‘often’).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>Authors from Asia, the Middle East and Africa were slightly more supportive of all the alternative forms of peer review but only those from the Middle East and Asia showed a corresponding decrease in support for rigorous peer review. However, this still came out as the most popular type of review in both of these regions. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This press release is accompanied by <b><i>Supplement 5</i></b> to the original report – which examines the subject, regional and country-level variations for each question regarding peer review in full:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><a href="http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/explore/open-access-survey-supp5.pdf"><b>www.tandf.co.uk/journals/explore/open-access-survey-supp5.pdf</b></a><b><u><o:p></o:p></u></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>You can find the basic results, the full survey and all the subject and regional data supplements at our OA survey homepage:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess/opensurvey"><b>http://www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess/opensurvey</b></a><b><o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>Follow us on Twitter for the latest news on the survey @TandFOpen (#oasurvey).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Visit our newsroom at: <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/page/press-releases">http://www.tandfonline.com/page/press-releases</a><u><span style='color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal>For more information, please contact:<br>Victoria Wright, Communications Manager, Taylor & Francis Group Journals<br>email: <a href="mailto:victoria.wright@tandf.co.uk">victoria.wright@tandf.co.uk</a><span style='font-size:8.0pt;line-height:115%'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";mso-fareast-language:AR-SA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>**********************<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>About Taylor & Francis Group<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>Taylor & Francis Group partners with researchers, scholarly societies, universities and libraries worldwide to bring knowledge to life. As one of the world’s leading publishers of scholarly journals, books, ebooks and reference works our content spans all areas of Humanities, Social Sciences, Behavioural Sciences, Science, and Technology and Medicine. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'>From our network of offices in Oxford, New York, Philadelphia, Boca Raton, Boston, Melbourne, Singapore, Beijing, Tokyo, Stockholm, New Delhi and Johannesburg, Taylor & Francis staff provide local expertise and support to our editors, societies and authors and tailored, efficient customer service to our library colleagues.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div>
<HR><font size="1" color="gray" face="Arial"><BR>
The information contained in this email message may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. Although this message and any attachments are believed to be free of viruses, no responsibility is accepted by Informa for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or use thereof. Messages to and from the company are monitored for operational reasons and in accordance with lawful business practices. <BR>
If you have received this message in error, please notify us by return and delete the message and any attachments. Further enquiries/returns can be sent to postmaster@informa.com<BR>
<BR>
Taylor & Francis Group is a trading name of Informa UK Limited, registered in England under no. 1072954<BR>
</font><BR>
</body></html>