Peer review, a global view

One of the largest research studies into peer review

What do researchers really think about peer review? 

What should peer review be achieving and how big is the difference between expectation and reality?

Vector illustration showing a character pointing to a checklist with a speech bubble above their head.

In 2015 Taylor & Francis ran a large-scale study to find out the views of researchers around the world about different aspects of the peer review process.

Over 7,400 authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors across the globe and from all academic disciplines took part in an online survey or focus groups.

Find out what they told us in Peer review in 2015: a global view.

Publishing tips, direct to your inbox

Expert tips and guidance on getting published and maximizing the impact of your research. Register now for weekly insights direct to your inbox.

Download the white paper to read more on:

  • The purpose of peer review, and how reality is matching with expectation

  • Perceptions on the prevalence of ethical issues in peer review

  • Timeliness in peer review

  • Different peer review models

Also available: Peer review, a global view

Interested in what motivates researchers to peer review? Or what training and support people would like to see in place? This supplement to the original survey digs into more of the detail about these important areas.

  1. Making a contribution to the field and sharing results are the strongest motivations for submitting to peer-reviewed journals.

  2. Playing their part as a member of the academic community, reciprocating the benefit, and improving papers are the most important reasons for agreeing to peer review in both science, technology and medicine (STM) and humanities and social sciences (HSS) disciplines.

  3. Most people received their first invitation to review through the journal editor or an editorial board member.

  4. Over two thirds of authors who have never peer reviewed would like to.

  5. 64% of authors in HSS and 63% in STM who are yet to review a paper would like formal training.

Start reading now by clicking on the supplement or accompanying data file below.

Key data and references from the 2015 whitepaper