Within academic publishing, peer review guarantees the validity and integrity of research. But carrying out peer review takes time, with lots of steps and administrative tasks to consider.
For most academic journals, common pain points make the peer review process harder than it needs to be. Yet by focusing on the root causes of slow peer review; utilizing tactics for reviewer recruitment, motivation, and deadline management; and setting realistic timelines and communicating them transparently to authors, you can achieve faster peer review turnaround times for your academic journal.
What is peer review, and why does it take so long?
Peer review is the standardized method of validating scientific or academic research prior to its publication. The reviewing process involves assessing the academic merit of a paper, its ethical suitability, and its alignment with a journal’s scope. If you’ve ever read academic work, whether in the form of an article or a book, it’s likely to have passed some form of peer review prior to publication.
The peer review process is generally long and complex, sometimes taking up to three or four months. There are many stages involved, with multiple lines of communication. On top of that, research often goes through several rounds of peer review, further lengthening the process and taking up more labor time.
It’s not only the complexity of the process itself that makes peer review lengthy; often, academic journals aren’t prepared for the difficulties that naturally arise during reviewing. So, what are some of these difficulties?
Root causes of slow peer review
Not all academic journals will experience the same issues during peer review. However, there are common pain points that slow the process.
Reviewer availability
Scholarly publishing continues to grow in the age of open access. However, the pool of reviewers struggles to keep pace with increases in submissions. And as more authors seek to publish their papers, reviewer demand goes up, leading to reviewer scarcities. There are stories of papers being rejected not because of their subject relevance or merit, but simply because there are not enough reviewers available at the time of submission.
Unclear expectations
Although the peer review process is standard practice, the actual expectations for peer reviewers aren’t always so clear. This can lead to inconsistencies and quality issues across your review reports.
That’s why, as an academic journal, you need to communicate what you need from a peer review report. Generally, reviewers should include four things when writing a peer review report:
- Summary of the research;
- Major and minor points to improve;
- Specific recommendations;
- Conclusions.
Poor follow-up
Communication with reviewers during the peer review process is key. Reviewers may also be juggling work commitments, intensive projects, and personal issues, so it’s best to ensure that you know the progress of their review reports. Poor follow-up may lead to significant increases in waiting times for authors, as well as potentially causing frustration for the reviewers themselves.
Proven tactics for reviewer recruitment, motivation, and deadline management
Despite these persistent difficulties, there are proven tactics you can use for reviewer recruitment, motivation, and deadline management.
Let’s start with recruitment. Recruiting peer reviewers takes time. On top of that, making sure the peer reviewers you select are good can cause further delays. Utilize manuscript reference sections, author recommendations, and online databases to ensure you’re choosing the right candidates in good time.
When it comes to motivating reviewers, ensure you align each paper’s subject matter with a reviewer’s research interests; recognize top reviewers with certificates and accolades; highlight the career benefits (especially for early-career researchers); and offer discounts on APCs. Doing these things makes authors feel like they are directly benefiting from reviewing, rather than simply doing your journal or the academic community at large a service.
For deadline management, journal management systems are a crucial part of keeping track of submissions. These systems allow you to assign reviewers, establish automated workflows and notifications, and send out customizable review templates.
Let JAMS help you manage your peer review process.
Setting realistic timelines and being transparent
To avoid issues during the peer review process, it’s best to have an honest conversation about your journal’s ability to meet deadlines. You don’t want to overstretch your working capacity, nor do you want to over-promise to authors about paper return times.
Use published timeframes that align with your workflows and transparently communicate your peer review times. If any delays occur, inform the author of the reason for the delay and provide further updates where possible. Try not to keep authors in the dark. Generally, if you can provide further information on reviewing progress, you should at the very least aim to respond to any queries within 3–5 days.