Hope for New Reviewers: Some Encouragement from an Editor-in-Chief

by Timothy C. Clapper, PhD, Editor of Simulation & Gaming

Peer review is a vital component of the scholarly publishing process. Becoming a peer reviewer for a major publication is a demonstration of selfless service, a willingness to give-back, and an assurance of quality to the literature that so many of us depend on. The purpose of peer review is to provide the journal or other publication with a means to select the highest quality of articles through a process of critical review and feedback by experts in the field. The peer review experience adds value to one’s curriculum vitae or portfolio and some publishers graciously recognize reviewer contributions. 

What matters to editors when selecting reviewers? Subject matter expertise is the most important factor in selecting a reviewer because it allows us to determine the content validity of the article. Here the reviewers critically assess the statements made by authors and requires them to show evidence for their positions, especially those that may be especially profound or game changing.

One area of expertise for me is in the area of instructional design. If I were reviewing a manuscript in that area and an author suggested that learning objectives were the least important consideration, I would take issue with that position. Knowing that learning objectives are one of the most important considerations in instructional design, I would insist on seeing evidence from credible sources that this statement was valid. I would ask for it to be removed from the article or otherwise, be revised as needed if the wording caused the reader to misinterpret the author’s true meaning. My expertise in instructional design is not limited by the amount of publications I have in that area. Subject matter expertise comes from other means as well, including (but not limited to) the number, type, and location of faculty development workshops that I have developed and facilitated.

It is a good thing that expertise comes in many forms because finding suitable reviewers is not an easy process. I recall the difficulty of finding a suitable reviewer for an extremely well-written military simulation article. I have access to top authors with numerous peer-reviewed articles in this area, but what happens when they appear together in a manuscript? In this case, I turned to a high-ranking military officer and a graduate of the US Army War College. This officer did not have one peer-reviewed publication, but through his military education, leadership roles, and assignments in some exceptional areas, he possessed a level of subject matter expertise that few in the military sciences could hope to achieve. The review he provided was detailed and superb. Since I knew that he was lacking research and publication experience, I balanced out the review process by selecting other reviewers who did have publication experience. This unique blend of reviewer experiences complimented one another.

Subject matter expertise, from a variety of sources, is the most important consideration when selecting reviewers, but it is not the only one. When we do find suitable reviewers, another factor in selection is availability and their willingness to review, usually an advantage for the new reviewer. First, having availability and a willingness to review goes a long way, especially when the editor is in a crunch for time. Editors like to be able to render a first decision to our authors in a timely manner. Secondly, as I have shared, there are many ways to demonstrate your subject matter expertise. Expertise can be in the form of things you are already doing such as academic projects, presentations, workshops, and tutorials, or from lifelong experience or career assignments. There is much more accumulated expertise and wisdom in those who actually do the work in the field and you may even have more experience than someone who publishes regularly.

I encourage you to organize your curriculum vitae or portfolio and then volunteer your time to an editor. Ultimately, it is up to each editor to decide if and how much they wish to use your services. It could be the break you need. If you are provided the opportunity, deliver the best review you can and within the specified timeframe. That quality review process itself is a worthy subject for another day.