The scholarly publishing landscape continues to evolve through new research, discussions on transparency, and reflections on the publishing process. This roundup highlights three recent publications that examine editorial decision-making, open peer review, and the human side of scholarly publishing.
Editorial review has the greatest influence on publication outcomes
Sam Zhang and his co-authors published a large-scale study in Science Advances examining editorial and peer review dynamics at Science and Science Advances. Analyzing more than 110,000 manuscript submissions between 2015 and 2020, the researchers found that editorial review serves as the most selective stage in the publication process. While reviewer recommendations strongly influenced final decisions, factors such as institutional prestige, team size, research topic, and the corresponding author’s geographic region showed stronger associations during editorial review than during peer review.
The study also reported relatively small gender-related differences compared to other manuscript characteristics, while noting that manuscripts from China-based corresponding authors experienced consistently lower success rates. Importantly, the authors emphasize that these findings represent statistical associations rather than evidence of bias or causation. Alongside the study, the authors released a deidentified dataset, providing the research community with one of the largest publicly available resources for studying editorial and peer review processes at elite multidisciplinary journals. Read the full article here.
Open peer-review reports linked to fewer retractions
Dalmeet Singh Chawla reported in Nature Index on a new MetaArXiv preprint exploring the relationship between transparent peer review and research integrity. The study analyzed 116,359 papers published in Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals since 2019, where authors can choose to publish peer-review reports after acceptance. Researchers found that papers with publicly available peer-review reports were retracted less frequently than papers whose review reports remained private.
The researchers cautioned that the findings demonstrate an association rather than a causal relationship. Additional analyses found no evidence that authors selectively published only favorable reviews. Instead, the authors suggest that researchers who choose transparent peer review may also be more likely to embrace broader open science practices and have greater confidence in their work. The study also observed differences in open peer-review participation across countries, highlighting how institutional policies and national approaches to open science may influence author decisions. Read the full article here.
A closer look at the emotional side of scholarly publishing
Haseeb Irfanullah reflected on the human experience of scholarly publishing in an article published by The Scholarly Kitchen. Drawing from personal experiences as both an author and reviewer, the article describes the emotional challenges that can arise throughout the publication process. Long review timelines, difficulty securing reviewers, editorial delays, and limited opportunities for authors to question decisions can contribute to frustration, uncertainty, and reduced trust in the system.
The article also acknowledges that editors and publishers face their own challenges, including reviewer shortages, research integrity concerns, and increasing pressure to maintain journal quality. Looking beyond individual experiences, it discusses broader developments such as preprints, artificial intelligence, research assessment, and the growing emphasis on publication metrics. The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of recognizing the human dimension of scholarly publishing while continuing efforts to improve transparency, efficiency, and fairness across the publication process. Read the full article here.
Have you come across an article, post, or study lately that had an impact on you? Share it with the community below.
