How to minimise delays in Peer Review
By Dan Nunan
Understanding how to effectively navigate the review process is key to success in publishing. Too often, the sense of elation at having submitted a paper is often replaced by frustration as the paper waits to go through the various steps in the review process.
Most researchers will be familiar with the mechanics of the submission process. If you are not, then SAGE provides a clear explanation of this process here. What they may be less familiar with is the challenges that editors face in managing the review process and the ways in which these can result in delays. Editors understand the importance of a rapid response, but delays might be unavoidable given the increasing volume of papers being submitted and limits to the pool of appropriately skilled reviewers. Understanding what causes delays can help authors avoid some of these delays, and also minimise frustration.
The first point to consider is reviewer availability. Unlike authors, for whom publishing articles results in positive career outcomes, reviewers operate without significant recognition in order to benefit the scholarly community of which they are part. Finding and maintaining a pool of reviewers is a challenge facing all editors. It is very common for reviewers to be invited, but take some time to decide a week or so later and then decline. Some reviewers may no longer be available for reviewing revisions. Recently, the impact of COVID has resulted in reviewers often requiring extensions to their reviewing times or simply being unavailable.
A related point is the availability of reviewers in a certain subject area. The question of whether an article ‘fits’ with a journal is not just a match with title and aims but also a match with the community of reviewers. Making it clear in the cover letter or early parts of an article how your work links to prior conversations in the journal is helpful in identifying potential reviewers.
Besides reviewer availability the other key factor is fit with the submission requirements of the journal. Dealing with a large number of papers is time consuming, and editors look for heuristics through which to judge the quality of submissions. Some examples of quality include making sure that the article has been prepared using the guidelines of the journal. Too often papers use a different abstract format or fail to link to the aims of the journal in a cover letter. This suggests that the paper has been recycled after a submission to a previous journal. Many times a year I see submissions where the authors have forgotten to change the title of the journal they are submitting to from a previous submission in a cover letter! This may seem like a trivial mistake but could lead the editor to question the overall quality of the paper.
The clarity of the abstract and title are also important in identifying reviewers. Unclear use of acronyms in the title or abstract, technical language that obfuscate the goals and the aims of the paper make it more difficult for the editor to identify reviewers.
Two other areas that cause delays relate to conflicts of interest and changes of authorship. Research ethics is critically important in reputable journals and it is of the upmost importance to declare conflicts of interest and be very clear about what these are. Often delays are caused by the use of ambiguous wording, perhaps because authors are trying to underplay the nature of the conflict. If you are unsure, please ask for advice from the journal before submission. A final area of delay is changes in authorship. Many authors seem surprised that this is an issue that causes delays. Sadly, many changes of authorship involve a request to add a senior academic to a paper at a late stage in the review process. Authorship implies a significant contribution to the paper. A change in authorship may be acceptable where reviewers require a change to a paper that needs new skills, such as new data analysis. Authors should be very clear on why changes in authorship are being proposed and the specific contribution to the paper.
About the author
Dan Nunan is a Professor at WMG, University of Warwick where he is a member of the Data Science Group. Previously he held faculty positions at the Universities of Reading, London and Portsmouth. He is Editor in Chief of the International Journal of Market Research and has reviewed for many leading journals. As an Editor, Associate Editor and reviewer he has handled more than 700 papers.