The peer-review process is crucial to the integrity of the academic publishing process as a whole. In fact, explanations of the different examples of peer review can be found on the website of many academic publishers. Having a clear definition of peer review is, simply put, important. But there’s a small issue. “Peer review” isn’t one single thing. There are many different kinds of peer review. Academic publishers, as an example, will often use one (or more) of these methods to ensure quality and credibility.
It is this part of the academic publishing process that results in many submitted journals getting rejected.
But what is the peer review process? In a nutshell, it is the process by which scientific, academic, or professional work is checked by others working in the same field. These reviews are often provided to journals (and, in turn, the authors) in the form of a “peer review report”.
Peer review reports are pivotal in ensuring that academic work is rigorous . They are a crucial set of guardrails to ensure the validity and importance of research.
Different kinds of peer review
As noted above, “peer review” isn’t really a single process. There are different types, but they generally accomplish the same thing in different ways. While open and double blind function in different ways for different reasons, they both aim to ensure the quality, validity, and novelty of academic findings. Because all the different types of peer review have differences, knowing which one is more suited to your journal is a good way to start standardizing the academic publishing pipeline.
The differences between them are also important for your team to understand as they will be the ones interfacing with authors who submit their work. Remember, at the end of the day, the goal of peer review is to ensure that there is integrity in the review process. It is your team’s responsibility to understand the different kinds of peer review, how they impact the publishing process, and that authors clearly understand the process.
Make sure that you carefully consider which type of review works best for your journals. Don’t forget to make sure that you’re establishing a peer review process with clear guidelines. Organization and the peer review process go hand-in-hand.
Briefly, let’s go over some of the more common peer-review methods. To learn about each in more detail, we recommend further reading on the matter.
Open peer review
The open peer review process is often considered to be the most transparent of the peer review types. In this system, both the authors and the reviewers are both known. This allows transparency in the process, as it is easy to see if a reviewer works with the authors of a paper (for example). This ensures that all the information is out in the open. Generally, while transparent, there are cases where this might not be the best option.
With open peer review, reviewers comments are published alongside the final manuscript. By publishing reviewer comments, readers can be aware of what peer reviewers actually had to say about the work. They can also see what authors did (or didn’t) to address reviewer comments.
Single blind peer review
In the single blind reviewer process, the identity of the peer reviewer is hidden from the authors. Here, the author of the paper does not know the identity of the reviewers, which has obvious benefits. By protecting the identity of the reviewer(s), the single blind process ensures that authors do not know (and thusly cannot influence) the reviewers. But a single-blind review also carries a risk of bias as the reviewer does know who the authors are.
Double blind peer review
In this case, the identities of the reviewers and the authors are hidden. This makes sure that there is no evident bias in any of the peer review processes. Often considered one of the best systems, as it provides the most anonymity. Be careful though, as authors can still be identified via citations, for example. Journal staff should always be diligent. A double-blind process is not a magic bullet for a perfect review. It’s important to ensure that standards remain high.
Why is peer review important?
Why peer review matters boils down to it’s role in the academic publication process. It isn’t just a service that benefits the authors (though it definitely does), it is critical for the academic community as a whole. Ironically, peer review isn’t taught as a class, but rather, it involves developing critical thinking skills and by learning from one’s peers and mentors. Learning how to peer review a research paper can help academics to contribute meaningfully to their fields.
The novelty, objectives, research questions, and methods can all be deeply important to members of the community. In fact, through by learning how to peer review a paper, and then doing it, many academics will be exposed to new and fascinating ideas.
Research is built on research, after all, but that foundation needs to be stable. As a publisher, understanding what peer review is and why it matters is crucial.
How do you choose good peer reviewers?
Finding qualified individuals does not need to be challenging, though it sometimes is. Qualified individuals who have time and are willing to review a manuscript can be facilitated through automation. A strong journal management system
In these situations, one of the most important tools at the disposal of a journal is to have impeccable records.
Keeping track of who you have invited, how often you have invited them, and what their specific area of expertise is can be vitally important. Even the most helpful peer reviewer can get annoyed if they receive weekly requests to review manuscripts that are outside of their scope of knowledge.
Careful research and a good tracking system are a must. To learn more about selecting good peer reviewers, we’ve put a guide together for you.
How are peer review reports done?
Unfortunately, there is no “standard” report. Journals often have recommendations that they provide to peer reviewers, these all tend to be more journal-specific than anything else. Sometimes one reviewer might focus on the methods of an experiment, but another chooses to focus on the way experimental results are communicated.
A lack of standards means that interpreting results can be challenging, for both the authors of a paper, as well as the journal.
Writing a peer review report
There are many different pieces of advice that you can look at when writing a report. Here, we’ll take a brief look at three things that can help an author to provide a valuable peer review report:
- Be concise;
- Compare to the literature;
- Include line numbers.
Let’s review these points in more depth.
Be concise
Peer reviewers and the authors of the works they are reading don’t always have a lot of time. Communicate information clearly and simply—it’s very important.
Compare to the literature
Peer reviewers should be experts in their fields, so they will probably know more than the journal staff about what the current state of the field is. Make sure you request that peer reviewers reference the literature if they are able to. Generally speaking, this is something that they will already do.
Include line numbers
While this might seem like a small thing, providing authors with the exact line that needs to be addressed will save them a significant amount of searching. Related to this, it’s important to ensure that journals provide copies of the research with line numbers so that peer reviewers do not need to turn this on themselves.
Success in publishing
There are lots of different ways to write a peer review report, but in order to make the process easier for the peer reviewer and the authors of the work, make sure you establish clear guidelines. In this respect, a clear peer review pipeline can help to accomplish those goals.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. But, make sure that you provide your peer reviewers with a list of specific things to look for. Your peer reviewers will be happy to have the guidance, and the authors will appreciate the clarity. Remember, in the end these reports should aim to help authors to improve their manuscripts.