peer review | Harrisco Blog

October 16, 2023October 16, 2023

How to fix flaws of peer review process in academic publishing?

First, let’s enlist the flaws of peer review process in academic publishing: slow and lengthy process, lack of transparency, and slow speed of completion. As peer review process is a voluntary service, there is sharp shortfall in the number of reviewers working for a journal. Most academics have rigorous workload. Ever since the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, the peer reviewers have ignored academic publishing and the process of academic publishing has hit an all- time low.

Although China has the highest number of papers published in international journals, most journals rely on the work and effort of Western peer reviewers. The quality of science skills offered by American and European peer reviewers is still considered quite high, as compared to Asian countries, like Japan, China, and Korea.

How can the speed of peer review process be increased to boost academic output? Most researchers have told academic publishers that peer review process should be accelerated by paying an honorarium to peer reviewers. Better forms of incentives should be provided to peer reviewers as it is a rigorous process that protects scientific accuracy and establishes facts.

Academic publishers are also asked to share profits with research departments of universities and institutes. Some of the other path-breaking strategies include free subscription of the journal, vouchers of publication, etc. However, peer review process quality lays heavy emphasis on the scientific rigor of reviewers.

If peer review becomes mandatory, universities would only recommend people with outstanding contribution to research. Conflicts of interest is another area that needs to be tackled. If academic publishers create a database of peer reviewers, authors can easily find experts that are related to their field of study.

The recruitment process of peer reviewers should be improved. The type of work academic publishers distribute should also be examined thoroughly. The methodology used in a research study or the content of the novel results should be correlated with the scientific publications of a researcher. Thus, either content or methodology should be used as a criterion for identifying an expert reviewer.

Journals should send vivid invitation letters to selected reviewers, which may or may not be many in number, depending on the field of study. The process is simpler when journal ask reviewers to accept or reject their invitation for review. There are many independent researchers from industries who can ease off the workload of academics. They too must be recruited. Finally, retired professors could form the creamy layer of peer reviewers.

Although double-blind peer review completely negates the biases towards nationalities of researchers, the open peer review process is also gaining ground. The identities of authors and reviewers are disclosed, which makes it a transparent process and increases human communication between authors and reviewers.

Consider the academic review process of Royal Society Open Sciences. It publishes the decisions of the journals editors; it publishes the review letters; and it also requests the voluntary peer reviewers to disclose their identity. The Open Access movement is gaining ground in academic publishing. Greater emphasis is now given to research studies that have time-sensitive parameters.

October 16, 2023October 16, 2023

What are the flaws in peer review process of academic publishing?

In academic publishing, an article is first a drafted manuscript that is carefully reviewed by scientists of a particular discipline and specialization. Their in-depth commentary identifies the flaws and highlights the benefits of the experimental study design and results. Receiving research grants and scholarships is impossible without getting a manuscript approved by a group of esteemed peer reviewers, who are usually mid-career researchers with an impressive track record of publications.

Most early career researchers are post-doc candidates who have to scrutinize their work from the eagle eyes of three to four peer reviewers. The authenticity of the research and its related findings need to be officially recognized by peer reviewers. After peer review process is completed, the article is polished by an academic publisher.

Some of the flaws of academic peer review process is that it is a slow and lengthy process, often determined by the type of peer review model followed by a journal. Academics are overworked people and they work on volunteer basis for journals. Therefore, peer review process seems to be exploitative for academics as it offers very little or no remuneration. The time and effort put in reviewing is an integral part of the publication process, so it should be compensated.

Another striking flaw of the peer review process is that is getting biased and lacks transparency. Most journals follow the double blind peer review system. The names of the authors of the manuscript are concealed. The reviewers do not know the names of the authors of the manuscript. At the same time, the names of the reviewers and their credentials are not furnished to authors. Thus, the current system lacks transparency and acts as a “black box.”

Finally, the speed of the peer review process is associated with a long waiting time. Whenever, a paper is submitted to a journal, it is scrutinized for the novelty of findings. Once the content is approved, the authors have to wait for a long time before the paper is sent to set of esteemed peer reviewers.

Once the peer review process is completed, the final publication process is initiated: here, the editors do NOT work in tandem with reviewers. Usually, researchers get their work published in peer-reviewed journals within one year or two. Delays in peer review process makes policymakers rely on outdated findings of science.

Early career researchers have to make a mark in the field of scholarly publications. They need to get a tenure of post-doc research positions and professorship only on the basis of their successful publications. Most post-doc researchers are very good in laboratory activities. Writing of experimental manuscripts is an art, which needs to be deciphered from the constructive comments of peer reviewers.

August 3, 2020

How to handle manuscript rejection of an academic journal

Many ESL (English as Second Language) researchers face manuscript rejections from the editorial board of prestigious peer-reviewed journals. However, they should not be disheartened and devise a strategy to overcome this debacle. Obviously, most authors would like to challenge the decision of the editorial board by making ardent appeals.

They can modify the content of the manuscript to suit the needs of the journal and consider resubmitting the manuscript to the same journal or they may seek the help of publishing experts and submit the revised draft to an entirely different journal. In this article, we describe the steps that authors need to take after manuscript rejection.

It is extremely challenging to comprehend the complex style guides of international scientific journals. As ESL researchers have a limited command over English language, they may seek the help of scientific editors to polish, revise, and review the content of their manuscript. Most authors ask their colleagues to do an informal peer review at the pre-submission stage.

Although a manuscript is revised and reviewed several times before submission, about 40% papers get rejected after being peer-reviewed by an esteemed team of independent researchers. Moreover, the recent survey points out that 21% of scientific papers are rejected outright by the editorial board.

Even after a manuscript is rejected by a journal, an author has several options to move forward. An author need not despair by the negative review process, but they need to adapt to the constructive criticism provided by the editorial board. The reviews provided will certainly help the authors in improving the scientific content of their document.

Let’s explore what an author can to handle rejection by an academic journal

Appeal to the editorial board

Most journal websites display a policy for challenging the rejection of the editorial board. All authors have the fundamental right to appeal against rejection, but the decision should be based on logic. Emotional sentiments do not carry any weightage.

Sometimes, peer reviewers may reject a manuscript due to misunderstanding of content. Such situations are delicate, and authors can still defend their thesis politely. Appeals that elaborate the scope of the journal are not really appreciated by the editorial board.

2. Journal re-submission

When the authors have clarified their stance and cleared all misconceptions of peer reviewers, the editorial board will reconsider their decision and may even invite authors to resubmit their revised manuscript for publication. By incorporating the suggestions of peer reviewers, an author can brighten their chances of publication. However, the editorial board of some journals do not have any re-submission policy, and authors need to respect their viewpoint. In such cases, authors should try to find another journal suitable for publication.

3. Modify the manuscript before submitting it to a different journal

Most authors prefer to submit their work to another journal after facing rejection from the journal of their choice. However, the authors should carefully incorporate the changes suggested the peer-reviewers of the first journal. This would improve the scientific accuracy of the content and improve the hopes of publication in another journal.

Nevertheless, an author would still need to work on the manuscript and adjust it to the style specifications of a different journals. All journals have specific instructions for authors, and reference styles of most journals differ depending upon the field of study. A carefully worded, concise cover letter will impress the reviewing editor of the journal.

4. Submit to another journal without modifying the manuscript

Although this option seems to be easy, it is not really recommended to novice authors. All the efforts put forth by the esteemed team of peer reviewers would go in vain when authors do not acknowledge their suggestions. In general, most suggestions offered by peer reviewers improve the quality of the manuscript.

There could be some suggestions that may be erroneous due to misunderstanding and those can be overlooked. Although the set of peer reviewers would be different for another journal, they too may highlight the same flaws in the manuscript. All authors should carefully handle manuscript rejection of an academic journal.

5. Discard the manuscript and do not resubmit it to another journal

Some authors may feel so dejected that they may totally do away with the manuscript. Resubmitting a manuscript to another journal is a pain-staking process, but it is not correct to discard valuable research findings. Research data has to be published somewhere for mutual academic benefits. Who knows your data may be a building block for path-breaking research in the future?

We all know that scholarly publishing was concealed under paywalls, but things have changed today with the success of open access journals. Compared to the conventional subscription journals, many open access journals are less strict with their review process. Journals like PeerJ, PLOS One are incredible for biomedical researchers. Platforms like Figshare make research data freely accessible and citable to the masses.

6. Hire the services of author education companies

Finally, authors may consider the services offered by many author education companies. A complete package of scientific review, English editing, and journal selection may improve their chances of publication. Academic editors are native English speakers with advanced degrees in science and technology. They have an impressive track record of publication in international journals. Although there are several such companies, Harrisco is a name to reckon with.

Harrisco has been operational for the last 25 years, making Korean research accessible to international journals. Many retired American professors work remotely for Harrisco, embellishing the work of scientific manuscripts translated from Korean to English. So, the next time you face manuscript rejection, remember you are not alone. Harrisco is here to help every ESL researcher overcome the challenge of publishing in international English journals.

June 23, 2020

Tips for being a good peer reviewer

Peer review is an integral part of scholarly communications. It is a matter of pride for a researcher to receive an invitation of peer review. This process of peer review is carried out for every manuscript intended to be published in a journal or a book.

To perform the peer review of an article, journal editors only invite researchers who have done valuable and commendable work in their field of expertise. These distinguished academics are entrusted with the job of evaluating the manuscript of another researcher in the same field.

What is peer review in scholarly publishing?

Although it is honorable to be a peer reviewer, there are a lot of responsibilities associated with this position. The main goal of peer review is to determine whether the work of another researcher is good enough to be published in a scientific journal.

According to the editor of the journal Biochemia Medica, a peer reviewer is expected to objectively analyze the manuscript of another researcher.After thoroughly examining the manuscript, the peer reviewer has to provide constructive feedback to the author in the form of comments.

Depending upon the quality of research work, peer reviewers may consider it to be commendable enough for publication or they may reject a manuscript for poor presentation of scientific facts.

Tips for being a good peer reviewer of journal articles

1. Acceptance or rejection of invitation: A peer reviewer has to consider many factors while deciding whether to accept or reject the invitation sent by a journal editor. Among these factors, subject matter expertise is of prime importance.

A peer reviewer must first go through the abstract of the article to surmise his or her expertise in the given subject. Although journal editors extend their invitation to distinguished academics, there are chances of a researcher not being an expert in that particular topic. In such instances, a peer reviewer may reject the invitation of the journal.

Another important factor is time constraints. Researchers are normally busy people working for about 50 hours in a week. They have to carry out experiments, collaborate with other laboratories, and work on their own manuscripts.

However, they may spend some hours on weekends exploring the work of other researchers. In general, journal editors provide them about three weeks to complete a peer review. If a researcher is pressed for time, they should politely decline the invitation.

2. Academic misconduct: In a manuscript, researchers have to often cite the work of other related studies. In such cases, ESL authors find it hard to paraphrase the findings of previous research studies. They are often accused of plagiarism by journal editors.

Although the academic community may trust their peers, that is, colleagues, peer reviewers should always check the manuscript for plagiarism issues. They can thus detect academic misconduct of authors. Peer reviewers have the authority to reject a paper on issues of plagiarism.

Sometimes, authors may present exemplary results in their manuscript. However, a peer reviewer should double check such results by repeating the experiment in his or her laboratory and with the same equipment. In this way, peer reviewers can catch hold of authors presenting false data.

3. Scope and objective of the journal: A peer reviewer should always look for the scope and objective of the journal. The target audience of the journal should also be considered. If a researcher has received a journal editor’s invitation for the first time, the researcher should make it a point to read few of the published papers from that journal. Moreover, the author information presented on the journal’s website should also be considered.

4.Title of the article: A peer reviewer should thoroughly judge the suitability of the article’s title. The title should be presented in a lucid language and should not contain unnecessary jargon. It should clearly reflect the content of the article. Although a peer reviewer may suggest improvements in the title, the author should not be compelled to have a style that super-imposes the style of the reviewer.

5. Review the article’s content: The main objective of the peer review process is to determine the novelty factor of the results presented in the manuscript. A reviewer has to peruse through the document to understand whether the content adds something new to their area of expertise.

The view-points of the peer reviewers may be subjective, but they can certainly make the process more transparent. For this purpose, they must check whether the manuscript is concisely summarized in the abstract. Moreover, the references presented in the bibliography must be precise, reliable, and sufficient to support the claims made in the literature.

A peer reviewer should thoroughly check whether there are any omissions of citations in the reference list. They should then point out this error in their feedback to the author. A peer reviewer should also check whether the author has justified all the claims with adequate data and results. If not, the peer reviewer must suggest ways to justify all the arguments and claims.

The author has to provide sufficient data for the reproducibility of results. A peer reviewer is not required to point out English language errors or inconsistencies in citation styles. However, a peer reviewer must mention the need for copy-editing in their comments to the author.

6.Accept or Reject Decision: A peer reviewer will rarely come across a paper that does not need any suggestions for improvement. If there are some issues that need to be corrected in a paper, the peer reviewer has to give the following decision: “Accept with minor revisions”. This is a favorable outcome for most authors, and the job of the peer reviewer is completed.

If the author has presented novel results but has not provided sufficient evidence, a peer reviewer may suggest major rewriting of the paper. The decision of the peer reviewer would thus be “Accept with major revision.” Some journals may prefer calling the decision as “Revise and resubmit.” In such cases, the paper may be again submitted for a second round of peer review.

If the paper is poorly written and offers no novelty factor, the reviewer would not recommend it for publication. In such cases, the decision of the reviewer would be outright “Reject.” There are instances where the content of the paper does not match with the scope and objectives of the journal.

In such cases, the authors must carefully consider another journal to avoid instances of mismatch. To tackle cases of journal mismatch, peer reviewers must not “reject” the paper outright but suggest the names of appropriate peer reviewed journals