Usefulness
Recognised best practice in the Essential Area of usefulness (Table 11) involves providing opportunities for further feedback on the review process, whether to authors, in the form of additional comments from editors on the decision, or to reviewers, in terms of feedback on the decision reached. Feedback is a two-way process, and journals with good practice should also encourage feedback on the peer review process from authors and peer reviewers too (either in decision emails or in surveys). Providing additional information where it was most helpful to do so was also recognised as a useful practice, for example checklists for submission in author guidelines or an editorial on how to write a manuscript suitable for publication in the journal. Support for editors and training was mentioned, especially with regard to evaluating manuscripts and peer review. The importance of recognising the voluntary work reviewers do, whether through services such as Publons, certificates, awards or discounts on publisher products, was also apparent.
The main obstacles to best practice in this area were a lack of awareness that seeking feedback could be beneficial or a concern that this could further burden reviewers or even the journal. Many journals acted if feedback was received, although they did not actively seek it. Another general theme was an inconsistent approach to the sharing of information. Some but not all reviewers may, for example, be informed about an editorial decision, and some but not all reviewer contributions were recognised.
36% have good practice on seeking feedback from editors (Q32: R-score = 3), and 45% have some practice on this (Q32: R-score = 2). On the other hand, 74% have no practice around soliciting feedback from reviewers (Q19: R-score = 1).