skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


This content will become publicly available on June 25, 2026

Title: Introducing the Journal Editors Discussion Interface
Journal editors play an important role in advancing open science in their respective fields. However, their role is temporary and (usually) part time, and therefore many do not have enough time to dedicate towards changing policies, practices, and procedures at their journals. The Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, https://dpjedi.org) is an online community for journal editors in the social sciences that was launched in 2021, consisting of a listserv and resource page. JEDI aims to increase uptake of open science at social science journals by providing journal editors with a space to learn and discuss. In this paper, we explore JEDI’s progress in its first two years, presenting data on membership, posts, and from a members survey. We see a reasonable mix of people participating in listserv conversations and there are no detectable differences among groups in the number of replies received by thread-starters. The community survey suggests JEDI members find conversations and resources on JEDI generally informative and useful, and see JEDI primarily as a community to get honest opinions from others on editorial practices. However, JEDI membership is not as heterogeneous as would be ideal for the purpose of the group, especially when considering geographic diversity.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2332061
PAR ID:
10621555
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
IASSIST
Date Published:
Journal Name:
IASSIST Quarterly
Volume:
49
Issue:
2
ISSN:
2331-4141
Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
open science scholarly publishing community social science
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, Research Integrity and Peer Review)
    Abstract Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors:www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide:https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx). 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; (, Science Education)
    While there is evidence to support the existence of identity-based disparities, inequities, and biases in the academic journal peer-review process, little research supports the presence of this bias in the peer-review process for academic journals in science education. Through an analysis of six leading journals in science education, we aimed to investigate the extent to which diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as the presence of bias in the peer-review process, are addressed by these journals. We analyzed trends in the gender/sex, geographical affiliation, race/ethnicity, and the presence of equity-centered research focus for members of these journals' editors and editorial boards. We found that although gender/sex is well-balanced in these journals' editors and editorial boards, they are typically North American centric, and White individuals are overwhelmingly represented. Four journals had a quarter or more of individuals who pursue equity-centered research. Only two journals provided detailed information on how manuscripts are reviewed in their author submission guidelines. All used a double-blind approach to peer-review. One of the journals includes an explicit position on DEI. Based on the analyses and reflections on our own experiences, we recommend science education journals consider ways to probe whether bias does exist in their peer-review process, diversify their board to be more inclusive of scholars from communities historically marginalized, and move to a triple-blind approach to their peer-review process as mechanisms to mitigate bias in the journal peer review. 
    more » « less
  3. ; (, Science Education)
    Across a broad range of disciplines, research has found that inequity is systemic in the journal review process. Collectively, however, this study does not specifically examine racial inequity. Moreover, literature on the peer review process in science education, in particular, does not foreground equity as a subject of study. The present study aims to address this void by examining racial equity in the peer review process with a specific focus on journals in science education. Data are collected from lead editors of major science education journals through the form of interviews, focus groups, and critical arts-based methods. The two research questions driving data collection are (a) In what ways does the science education journal peer review process promote racial equity? and (b) How are science education journal editors’ perceptions of racial inequity reflected in the peer review process? McNair and colleagues’ racial equity framework informs the explorations of journal review in science education from the lead editors’ perspectives. From our findings, we offer four suggestions for moving toward greater racial equity in the science education peer review process. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; (, mBio)
    Casadevall, Arturo (Ed.)
    ABSTRACT In this editorial, written by early-career scientists, we advocate for the invaluable role of society journals in our scientific community. By choosing to support these journals as authors, peer reviewers, and as editors, we can reinforce our academic growth and benefit from their re-investment back into the scientific ecosystem. Considering the numerous clear merits of this system for future generations of microbiologists and more broadly, society, we argue that early-career researchers should publish our high-quality research in society journals to shape the future of science and scientific publishing landscape. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; (, Research in Engineering Education Symposium & Australasian Association for Engineering Education Conference)
    ABSTRACT CONTEXT The peer review process plays a critical role in ensuring the quality of work published within a field and advancing the knowledge within the research community. However, for many members of the community, the process of peer review largely remains a black box to many scholars, especially those with less experience within the community. Therefore, there is a need to illuminate the peer review process for the research community. PURPOSE OR GOAL To more transparently reveal the contents of the black box around the peer review process, we interviewed editors (associate and deputy editors) for the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) to provide editor perspectives on the overall peer review process. The goal of this paper is to clearly articulate the behind-the-scenes processes of peer review as well as the expectations and perceptions of the editors with respect to publishing within JEE. By bringing these processes to light, we hope that more members of the field will be aware of the overall process and the associated expectations for contributing to the field. APPROACH OR METHODOLOGY/METHODS To meet the goals of this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with six editors of JEE who worked in the field of engineering education research (EER), as a part of a larger project exploring the boundaries of the field as expressed within the peer reviews process. The interviewer from the research team followed a protocol but also asked additional questions to elicit more details in some cases. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically coded using an open-coding process. ACTUAL OR ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES Based on the analysis of the editor interviews, we present three critical aspects of the peer review process: the types of editors, the process that editors typically conduct to identify reviewers, and the types of decisions through the process. Additionally, we highlight considerations and advice from the editors to help members of the EER community develop. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS/SUMMARY The current study makes the editors’ perspectives and decision-making processes more explicit to readers. These decision-making processes are full of careful considerations and also challenges. By doing so, we hope to help the members of the EER community gain a better understanding of what is going on backstage of the peer review process. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email