For the latest update on Journal Citation Reports, refer to this article: Clarivate Analytics releases the 2017 Journal Citation Reports. The Intellectual Property (IP) & Science business of Thomson Reuters has released the 2016 Journal Citation Reports® (JCR). The JCR is the world’s most influential resource for evaluating peer-reviewed publications and the source of annual journal metrics, […]
Many readers of Editage Insights are authors anxious to improve their chances of having their work published by studying the advice of experienced professionals in editing, writing and associated fields. If they’ve submitted manuscripts to journals, they may have become aggrieved waiting to be informed about the fate of their manuscripts. In this article series, I explain one of the main causes of delays in journal peer review and editorial decision-making, from the editor’s point of view.
In its simplest form, the peer review process can be depicted by a flowchart like the one shown below, typically including a box that says “Manuscript is peer reviewed.” To the left of this box is one that says “Author submits manuscript” and to the right is a box labelled “Editor makes a decision”.
However, the peer review process is not as plain as the flowchart looks. At Polar Research, the most time-consuming – and often frustrating – task is rounding up peer reviewers to evaluate submissions and then waiting (sometimes in vain) for the promised reviews to materialize. The “Manuscript is peer reviewed” box in fact bulges with difficulties.
I’m going to bypass larger questions about peer review: whether it’s fair, whether it truly works as it’s supposed to, and so on. These are significant questions but they are not the topic of this series. Instead, I’m going to concentrate on the nitty-gritty of selecting potential peer reviewers for a conformity and finding two or three who are willing to review it. As I explain, this process can take much more effort – and time – than authors imagine.
Identifying peer reviewers
The very first step is to identify potential peer reviewers—researchers who are a good match for the subordination. Some journals have a pool of loyal peer reviewers to whom the editors regularly assign submissions. This very likely works well for journals with fairly narrowly defined scopes. For a multi-disciplinary journal like Polar Research, which receives submissions from a broad range of sciences and other disciplines on subjects spanning the optical properties of sea ice to the mating habits of polar bears and early 20th century aeronautical expeditions in the Arctic, maintaining a pool of peer reviewers with the necessary expertise to evaluate so many different topics isn’t feasible. Tho’ we’re glad to treatment reviewers who have served us well in the past, we’re also continually seeking fresh reviewers to cover the diverse topics of the submissions that we receive.
We employ several means to identify potential reviewers. Right off the bat, colleagues at our various institutions or other people in our networks may leap to mind. We also look through the manuscript’s list of bibliographic references for names of authors who have published on the topic. Using search terms drawn from the title, the abstract and our own skill of the subject, we use the Web of Science (WoS) to hunt for more researchers who might not be cited in the manuscript. The WoS is also a handy implement for finding out more about the authors listed in the reference list as well as for checking if a potential peer reviewer has co-authored with one or more of the authors of the current subjugation.
Sometimes authors suggest potential reviewers. While this would seem to be a favour to journal editors, a few despicable authors have used this as an chance to have their papers reviewed by their friends or even, in particularly daring instances, by the authors themselves.1 Enough cases like this have come to light to cause some editors to avoid author-suggested peer reviewers like the plague.
At Polar Research we do consider author-suggested peer reviewers. Without meaning to impugn the integrity of our contributors, we routinely screen suggested names using the WoS and other means to confirm that the suggested reviewers have the relevant expertise, that they haven’t recently or regularly co-authored with one of the authors of the current subjugation and that they’re not at the same institution as any of the current manuscript’s authors. If everything looks ok, an author-suggested reviewer may be invited.
Note, however, that it’s very uncommon at Polar Research for a paper to be reviewed exclusively by peer reviewers suggested by the authors. Sometimes, one of the two or three experts reviewing a paper is a person who was suggested by the author. Usually none of the author-suggested reviewers completes up reviewing the obedience. This is because we editors often identify reviewers whom we believe to be better qualified. Also, when invited, even author-suggested reviewers often turn us down.
In my next articles, I will describe what happens after potential reviewers have been identified and discuss why researchers turn down peer review invitations.
1. Furgason C, Marcus A. & Oransky I. 2014. The peer-review scam. Nature 515, 480-482.