We are proud to announce that one of our valued publisher partners, Wiley has passed the landmark figure of one million reviews on Publons. This is a testament to the 180,000+ reviewers for Wiley journals who are getting the recognition they truly deserve for their commitment for peer review.
Wiley have been partnered with us since 2015, contributing to our inaugural Global State of Peer Review report and participating as a development partner on the Transparent Peer Review pilot project. Here’s a few highlights from the Publons-Wiley partnership as of July 2019:
- Over 180,000 Wiley reviewers have contributed reaching the landmark ONE MILLION reviews
- 92% of Wiley’s reviewer community (on Publons) have used the Publons/Wiley journal integration feature to automatically add reviews to their profile
- 970 Wiley journals are now integrated with Publons
- There are over 1,000 transparent or open Wiley reviews on Publons
We spoke to two members of the Wiley review community, Cythia Riginos, and David Belin, to get their viewpoint on the changing landscape of peer review as well as their own experience of being part of the Publons peer review network.
Publons: Wiley has been a Publons partner for 4 years, using the Publons Reviewer Recognition Service since 2015 to seamlessly recognize their reviewers. As a Wiley reviewer, how important is it for you to get recognition for your peer review work?
Cynthia Riginos: It is nice to have a clear public record that can be benchmarked against other reviewers. The effort of registering each review is minimal and very painless!
David Belin: The peer review process being at the core of the research output against which individuals’ performance is assessed, it should be considered a service to the community.
I strongly believe that reviewers should get recognition for their peer-review work and that this activity should be considered better re promotions, output and general service to the community.
Publons: How important has being part of the Publons community been in your development as a reviewer and researcher?
Cynthia Riginos: It is validating to know that my reviews are being “counted” in some way and also Publons has made me realize that the effort I put into reviews is above the mean, so that is gratifying.
David Belin: I used my Publons record and recent award in my application for a promotion to a readership.
Publons: This is not only a huge landmark for Wiley but the reviewer community overall as recognition for review gains momentum. How important do you think it is to scholarly communications and the wider research ecosystem that peer review is fully recognized as a research output?
Cynthia Riginos: I think this is super important. Peer review makes papers better, no question about that.
It’s not a perfect system but there is no superior alternative. There are many reviewers who put a huge effort into undertaking thoughtful reviews - this care and insight should be recognized and valued by the community.
David Belin: I do not think peer review should be recognized as a research output as this would assume all reviewers provide similar intellectual input in to their reviews. However, I am of the view that if the comments of the reviewer and their suggestions really contribute substantially to the paper, there should be a discussion as to whether the authors should be encouraged to consider that reviewer as having an intellectual contribution to the paper that justifies they should be an author of that paper.
Publons: Wiley has been an early mover in the development of transparent peer review workflows. In light of the growing support for the open science/open research movement, do you think the scholarly community would benefit from more openness in the peer review process?
Cynthia Riginos: Although I fully agree with giving credit to reviewers, I also think that there is tremendous value in reviewers’ identities remaining largely anonymous.
Too often the reviewer can be an early career academic and thereby making their review open could put them in a conflict of interest situation, especially when there is an influential senior author on the paper being reviewed.
David Belin: I strongly believe all reviews should be published alongside the paper the reviewers should always disclose their identity indeed.
Thanks Cynthia and David!