Communication about the peer review process is very important. Because peer review is a crucial part of the academic publishing pipeline, it needs to be given an appropriate amount of time.
But, what is the right amount of time to wait for peer review reports? And how can you make sure that you aren’t put into a situation where you’re forced to wait for a very long time for those reports?
In this article, we’ll go over a few different ways in which you can implement some guidelines in your peer review process to make sure that things move quickly.
How long should the process take?
This is the most common question that an author might have. There are a lot of variables to take into account when it comes to peer review. For example, how many reports do you need to get? Are there conflicting reports? Is there a large pool of potential peer reviewers? How many reports does the journal require?
These all might affect how long a peer review takes, but for different reasons. For example, if an area of research is highly specialized or uncommon, finding someone who is a qualified reviewer of the subject matter might be challenging. These cases might be rare, but they do happen. In both cases, it’s important to communicate to the authors that the process might take longer than expected based on these conditions. Another factor to consider is the standard range of what a peer review process will typically take. Generally speaking, three months is a fairly commonly accepted amount of time for a peer review process to be done—but this is a general view. In reality, a peer review can take as little as one or two weeks, but sometimes up to three or four months.
Authors need to be informed prior to the process beginning as to how long they can expect it to take. They need communication. But also, they need to be told that there might be changes to the schedule depending on different factors.
Making sure that you keep an author informed is a good way to avoid complaints later on.
So, how long do you tell an author to expect?
A peer review breakdown
When you’re providing your authors with a window of time, it’s important to consider two things. First, you need to keep in mind what the averages are. It’s great if you are able to say that you’ve do a peer review in a week. But is that common? Providing a window of time (for example, “four to seven weeks”) might be enough to give your team some breathing space if a peer review report doesn’t show up, or if you receive conflicting reports and need more time to find another potential reviewer to give you more information.
Be realistic about how long the process can take, and don’t try to over promise and under deliver. Make sure that you are also clear that the process can be affected by factors outside of your control.
Communication with authors about peer review times
Communicating with authors is always critical. Sometimes, a calendar system can help to communicate with authors in a timely manner. In other cases, you might want to consider a well organized spreadsheet to make sure that you don’t miss notifications. Sometimes, using a journal management system can help to ensure that you don’t miss any of these important messages because they have built in timers that will notify you when action is needed. In many cases, these sorts of systems can help you to avoid problems before they even happen. Communication is, after all, key.
If issues arise, communicating with authors should be the first priority. Don’t let potential delays become problems.
Communication with your team about peer review
The peer review portion of the publication process is deeply important to the process as a whole. Make sure that your team knows that this is an area that they need to pay attention. Proper training of your team can help in this regard. We’ve talked about the importance of training employees well before.
With this said, make sure that you communicate specific things. First of all, let your staff know that communication with authors is very important. Making sure that your staff do not cause avoidable problems through inaction can have an impact on your company’s reputation. Remember, negative reviews from members of the academic community can be very damaging. Mistakes will happen, and people are usually quite understanding, but when mistakes are avoidable, that’s when it can have a negative impact.
Make sure your expectations are clear and that your team understand them. Remember, authors have chosen your journal, presumably based on your reputation. Make sure that you don’t disappoint them.
Remember, your authors ultimately can be your biggest supporters, so make sure they have positive things to say.