How to Get Published Webinar Series: Peer review Q&A

By Jessica Lipowski and Brittney Stewart

In our free monthly webinar series, we receive hundreds of questions from attendees and we try to answer as many as possible during the webinar. We selected a few of the most common questions regarding peer review, and here is what our experts had to say:

What is better: anonymous or transparent peer review? 

At SAGE we embrace an inclusive culture that amplifies diverse voices to ensure that everyone is given a fair opportunity. Many of our journals adopt anonymized peer review to ensure that authors are not getting an unfair advantage or disadvantage because of who they are. We want to ensure that reviewers are comfortable providing candid feedback on all manuscripts in a safe, confidential manner and ensure that papers do not suffer scrutiny from unintended bias. 

On the other hand, transparent (open) peer review allows research to be published in a completely open format, giving readers access to the peer review process from submission to publication. Through the publication of reviewer reports, authors can demonstrate that their manuscript has been through rigorous peer review, and reviewers and editors can gain recognition for their work. Important additional arguments for increased transparency include its potential to help unveil biases - conscious and unconscious, unfair reviewer reports, unwanted tone and language, conflicts of interests, and unfair advantages.  

It is up to the author team to determine which type of peer review is best suited for their manuscript. We currently offer open, transparent peer review on a small number of journals. For more information, please visit our Transparent Peer Review page.  

How are peer reviewers selected? 

Sourcing and securing the services of good reviewers is perhaps the most difficult aspect of managing the peer review process. Editors can keep track of reviewers’ areas of expertise by asking them to add keywords to their profile. Within the journal submission portal, editors can see the number of times they have been asked to review and see the speed and quality of their reviews. 

Reviewers may also be Editorial Board members – or nominated by those colleagues who might be willing support the journal as a reviewer. Editors may check the reference list in the submitted paper to find authors of related work who could act as reviewers. Editors might also search relevant databases and repositories e.g. Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed. Please note our policy is that reviewers should not be assigned to a paper if: 

• The reviewer is based at the same institution as any of the co-authors. 

• The reviewer is based at the funding body for the paper. 

Is it common for a journal to use less than two peer reviewers? 

In general, SAGE strongly recommends obtaining two independent external reviews, though in practice the number of reviewers may vary depending on your field, the particular topic being discussed, manuscript type (i.e. Editorial), and the quality of the manuscript (i.e. a borderline manuscript may require a third – or fourth – opinion).  

The journal’s peer review policy is specified in the submission guidelines. For transparency and in light of increased public interest in the peer review process, editors may include provenance statements in published articles (e.g. “Provenance: not commissioned; externally peer reviewed by two reviewers”), especially if the peer review of a particular manuscript differs from the stated policy. Sometimes certain article types may only secure one external peer reviewer. Sometimes an editorial board member may be that second peer reviewer. 

For revised manuscripts, if the suggested changes are minor and if, on reviewing the revision against previous reviewer comments, the editor may feel that the concerns of the reviewers have been addressed to their satisfaction, it is not required that to send the revision back out to reviewers for comment. 

How can I deal with conflicting reviewer comments? 

If you are in this situation, it depends on whether you think the changes you made improved the manuscript or not. You can either revert back to the original and just note in your response back that you had made that change at the request of a previous reviewer but agree that this is stronger, or you can contact the editor and explain the situation and ask the editor if you should keep the revised version requested by the first reviewer or revert back to the original as requested by the new reviewer.  

Every scholar has their preference for everything (whether it be the storytelling within the context of the lit review, the methodological approach that “should” have been used, the discussion, conclusions – you name it!). The key thing here is to remember that reviewers offer suggestions for improvement. If you, as the author, feel like the changes as suggested by the first reviewer were valid, then you need to explain (very clearly) why you think it is best to not go back to the original version. But if, however, you think the original version was the smarter approach, then go back to that approach. We should not make changes to a manuscript just because a reviewer suggested a change – we should make changes because a reviewer’s suggestions made sense and made the manuscript stronger by doing so. 

Do what is best for articulating the message in the best manner. For what is not done (as per a reviewer’s suggestion), explain clearly why you decided on one approach over another approach. 

Is it okay to reach out to the editor to interpret reviewer comments? 

It is okay to reach out to the editor – but, only after consulting with a close colleague(s) for assistance (someone at your institution who would not have been asked to review the paper) and only after ensuring the confusion is coming from the presentation of the comments. That being said, you can reach out if you need to. Editors can help interpret - or can go back and ask the reviewer questions if needed. 

Will the same reviewers be invited to review a revised manuscript? 

Editors will often ask reviewers if they are able or willing to review a manuscript when it comes back for revision. Sometimes it is the same reviewer(s) and sometimes it is not and that can depend on a variety of reasons and factors. For instance, the previous reviewer may not be available due to other commitments. Perhaps due to the revisions requested, another reviewer is better suited. There can be a variety of reasons for choosing the same – or new – reviewers. 

How can I become a peer reviewer? Do I need to be experienced?  

There are two major ways you can start the journey of becoming a volunteer reviewer and give back to your discipline. The first is to create an account in the journal's peer review site. Make sure a regularly checked email address is used. An institutional email address would be preferred. Create or add an ORCID ID. Include a full affiliation. Specify the degree or degrees and choose the appropriate salutation. Make sure strong keywords that best illustrate their research expertise are included. Good keywords are generally those that are descriptive, but not too descriptive.  

The second way to become a volunteer reviewer is by connecting with editors. A reviewer may consider reaching out to editors directly via email (many have their email addresses on the journal's website) or by creating a Web of Science Reviewer Recognition account. 

By volunteering to be a reviewer for journals in your field, it will allow you to see submitted papers, comments from other peer reviewers, and the final decision. You can then use what you learned to better frame your paper, so although it is helpful to have been published, it is not necessary. You might also be able to meet other potential co-authors through this volunteer work. 

You may also want to consider partnering with a more senior researcher in your field who can help guide you through the peer review process. We have a number of resources available on our SAGE Reviewer Gateway. 

If you would like to register for upcoming webinars or to watch the recordings of past events, click here.

About the Authors