Usefulness
Recognised best practice in the Essential Area of usefulness (Table 11)
involves providing opportunities for further feedback on the review
process, whether to authors, in the form of additional comments from
editors on the decision, or to reviewers, in terms of feedback on the
decision reached. Feedback is a two-way process, and journals with good
practice should also encourage feedback on the peer review process from
authors and peer reviewers too (either in decision emails or in
surveys). Providing additional information where it was most helpful to
do so was also recognised as a useful practice, for example checklists
for submission in author guidelines or an editorial on how to write a
manuscript suitable for publication in the journal. Support for editors
and training was mentioned, especially with regard to evaluating
manuscripts and peer review. The importance of recognising the voluntary
work reviewers do, whether through services such as Publons,
certificates, awards or discounts on publisher products, was also
apparent.
The main obstacles to best practice in this area were a lack of
awareness that seeking feedback could be beneficial or a concern that
this could further burden reviewers or even the journal. Many journals
acted if feedback was received, although they did not actively seek it.
Another general theme was an inconsistent approach to the sharing of
information. Some but not all reviewers may, for example, be informed
about an editorial decision, and some but not all reviewer contributions
were recognised.
36% have good practice on seeking feedback from editors (Q32: R-score =
3), and 45% have some practice on this (Q32: R-score = 2). On the other
hand, 74% have no practice around soliciting feedback from reviewers
(Q19: R-score = 1).