Towards codes of practice for navigating the academic peer review process

Benjamin K.  Sovacool; Jonn Axsen; Laurence L. Delina; Hilary Schaffer Boudet; Varun Rai; Roman Sidortsov; Sefa Awaworyi Churchill; Kirsten E. H. Jenkins; Ray Galvin

doi:10.1016/j.erss.2022.102675

Towards codes of practice for navigating the academic peer review process

Benjamin K. Sovacool^*, Jonn Axsen, Laurence L. Delina, Hilary Schaffer Boudet, Varun Rai, Roman Sidortsov, Sefa Awaworyi Churchill, Kirsten E. H. Jenkins, Ray Galvin

^*Corresponding author for this work

School of Social and Political Science

Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review

Abstract / Description of output

Peer review is the bedrock of modern academic research and its lasting contributions to science and society. And yet, reviewers can submit “poor” peer review reports, authors can blatantly ignore referee advice, and editors can contravene and undermine the peer review process itself. In this paper, we, the Editors of Energy Research & Social Science (ER&SS), seek to establish peer review codes of practice for the general energy and social science research community. We include suggestions for three of the most important roles: peer reviewers or referees, editors, and authors. We base our 33 recommendations on a collective 60 years of editorial experience at ER&SS. Our hope is that such codes of practice can enable the academic community to navigate the peer review process more effectively, more meaningfully, and more efficiently.

Original language	English
Article number	102675
Journal	Energy Research & Social Science
Volume	89
Early online date	7 Jun 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102675
Publication status	Published - Jul 2022

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

editors
authors
peer reviewers
codes of conduct
misconduct
academic practice

Access to Document

10.1016/j.erss.2022.102675Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY)

SovacoolEtal2022ERSSTowardsCodesOfPracticeFinal published version, 1.17 MBLicence: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY)

Cite this

@article{6381f5f6d31e458fb4633dfdd4aa9431,

title = "Towards codes of practice for navigating the academic peer review process",

abstract = "Peer review is the bedrock of modern academic research and its lasting contributions to science and society. And yet, reviewers can submit “poor” peer review reports, authors can blatantly ignore referee advice, and editors can contravene and undermine the peer review process itself. In this paper, we, the Editors of Energy Research & Social Science (ER&SS), seek to establish peer review codes of practice for the general energy and social science research community. We include suggestions for three of the most important roles: peer reviewers or referees, editors, and authors. We base our 33 recommendations on a collective 60 years of editorial experience at ER&SS. Our hope is that such codes of practice can enable the academic community to navigate the peer review process more effectively, more meaningfully, and more efficiently.",

keywords = "editors, authors, peer reviewers, codes of conduct, misconduct, academic practice",

author = "Sovacool, {Benjamin K.} and Jonn Axsen and Delina, {Laurence L.} and Boudet, {Hilary Schaffer} and Varun Rai and Roman Sidortsov and Churchill, {Sefa Awaworyi} and Jenkins, {Kirsten E. H.} and Ray Galvin",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 The Author(s)",

year = "2022",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1016/j.erss.2022.102675",

language = "English",

volume = "89",

journal = "Energy Research & Social Science",

issn = "2214-6296",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Towards codes of practice for navigating the academic peer review process

AU - Sovacool, Benjamin K.

AU - Axsen, Jonn

AU - Delina, Laurence L.

AU - Boudet, Hilary Schaffer

AU - Rai, Varun

AU - Sidortsov, Roman

AU - Churchill, Sefa Awaworyi

AU - Jenkins, Kirsten E. H.

AU - Galvin, Ray

PY - 2022/7

Y1 - 2022/7

N2 - Peer review is the bedrock of modern academic research and its lasting contributions to science and society. And yet, reviewers can submit “poor” peer review reports, authors can blatantly ignore referee advice, and editors can contravene and undermine the peer review process itself. In this paper, we, the Editors of Energy Research & Social Science (ER&SS), seek to establish peer review codes of practice for the general energy and social science research community. We include suggestions for three of the most important roles: peer reviewers or referees, editors, and authors. We base our 33 recommendations on a collective 60 years of editorial experience at ER&SS. Our hope is that such codes of practice can enable the academic community to navigate the peer review process more effectively, more meaningfully, and more efficiently.

AB - Peer review is the bedrock of modern academic research and its lasting contributions to science and society. And yet, reviewers can submit “poor” peer review reports, authors can blatantly ignore referee advice, and editors can contravene and undermine the peer review process itself. In this paper, we, the Editors of Energy Research & Social Science (ER&SS), seek to establish peer review codes of practice for the general energy and social science research community. We include suggestions for three of the most important roles: peer reviewers or referees, editors, and authors. We base our 33 recommendations on a collective 60 years of editorial experience at ER&SS. Our hope is that such codes of practice can enable the academic community to navigate the peer review process more effectively, more meaningfully, and more efficiently.

KW - editors

KW - authors

KW - peer reviewers

KW - codes of conduct

KW - misconduct

KW - academic practice

U2 - 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102675

DO - 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102675

M3 - Editorial

SN - 2214-6296

VL - 89

JO - Energy Research & Social Science

JF - Energy Research & Social Science

M1 - 102675

ER -

Towards codes of practice for navigating the academic peer review process

Abstract / Description of output

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this