Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts

Abstract

The goal of this study is to shed light on the involvement of early career researchers (ECRs) during peer review of manuscripts for publication in journals. In particular, we sought to better understand how commonly ECRs contribute ideas and/or text to peer review reports when they are not the invited reviewer (“co-review”), and how commonly ECRs do not receive named credit to the journal editorial staff for these scholarly efforts (“ghostwrite”). First, we evaluated 1,952 publications in the peer-reviewed literature generated by exhaustive search terms that combined synonyms of “early career researcher” and “peer review” and found no previous studies about ECRs ghostwriting peer review reports. We then surveyed 498 researchers about their experiences with, and opinions about, co-reviewing and ghostwriting as ECRs. Three quarters of those surveyed have co-reviewed and most find it to be a beneficial (95% agree) and ethical (73% agree) form of training in peer review. Co-reviewing is the second most commonly reported form of training in peer review besides receiving reviews on one’s own papers. Half of survey respondents have ghostwritten a peer review report, despite the 4/5ths majority opinion that ghostwriting is unethical. Survey respondents report that the three major barriers to including co-reviewer names on peer review reports are: a lack of communication between PIs and ECRs; a false belief that co-authorship is for manuscripts but not peer review reports; and prohibitive journal policies that are out of alignment with current practice and opinions about best practice. We therefore propose recommendations for changing this status quo, to discourage unethical ghostwriting of peer review reports and encourage quality co-reviewing experiences as normal training in peer review.