We should be giving back more to peer-reviewers

By Drs Lesley Irvine, T. J. Thomson, and Glen Thomas

As academics, we understand the vital role of feedback. We receive it from supervisors, students and peers. However, this type of 360-degree feedback is different from the business world as it can mean receiving evaluations from people we have never met. This is certainly the case with peer reviews for journal articles, where reviewer anonymity is often the norm.

More formal definitions of this type of peer-review process include assessing quality and evaluating the overall value of a research project. Whereas less formal responses suggest that taking on a reviewer’s role is a necessary and/or expected task in academia and a way to give back to the field.

We recently conducted a study that sought to explore the scholarly peer reviewer’s role and the type of feedback offered to authors. To do so, we reviewed a year’s worth of reviews from a communication journal and found that 63% of overall reviewer comments described the research or identified potential concerns. The remaining 37% of comments provided some level of guidance on how to resolve the identified issues. Where guidance was provided, the most frequent comment related to line edits.

While faulty grammar can mask meaning, it aligns more with editing or proofreading which is different to assessing research contributions. For those on the other end of the review, it offers little direction in terms of research design and execution, especially if the article requires revision (and, possibly, is later rejected). Also, these types of errors could be picked up at the copyediting stage, just before publication.

However, it would be too easy to suggest that reviewers were simply going for the low-hanging fruit and should have provided more substantial feedback. With multiple teaching, research and service commitments, academics are time-poor with no or limited workload allocation for reviewing. Furthermore, the availability of reviewers does not always meet demand. This can increase the burden on an already overstretched group and make it more likely that a reviewer may assess a paper outside their area of expertise. As we engaged with the literature, actual reviews and our own experiences, it became clear that more could be done to support the peer review process.

Firstly, we argue that a more explicit understanding of the role of a reviewer is required. Is it to identify flaws only or is it also an opportunity to improve the quality of the submitted research? Should it be both? While opinions will differ, it is a vital conversation that could alleviate confusion for all involved.

Secondly, and as a follow-on, we think the peer-review process would benefit from more explicit reviewing criteria. For example, in our study, the length of individual reviews ranged from as few as 45 words to as many as 1,496 words. A restrictive template is not the answer; however, key areas to be addressed would provide some level of consistency and understanding (for both reviewer and reviewee).

Thirdly, in an environment that relies on publications for advancement, additional training, especially for new academics, would benefit all. This would ensure reviewers have the necessary tools and experiences to at least understand the role. From there, competence and confidence can grow.

Fourthly, the time and effort involved in writing a review needs to be acknowledged. In taking a social constructivist viewpoint – where academic research involves collaboration – the role of the reviewer should be recognised as a vital part of ongoing research endeavours.

Finally, is it possible for peer reviews to help maintain academic integrity as well as achieve more altruistic goals of giving back to the field? Our research suggests yes, with the support of additional training / resources and discussions around workload implications.

read the article

Article Details
Title: Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline
Authors: Drs Lesley Irvine, T. J. Thomson, and Glen Thomas
First Published: May 16, 2024
DOI: 10.1177/1329878X241254568
Media International Australia

About the authors

Featured

Dr. Lesley Irvine is a lecturer (assistant professor) at the Queensland University of Technology, where she coordinates several communication courses.

Featured

Dr. T. J. Thomson (@Cenevox on X and LinkedIn) is a senior lecturer (associate professor) in visual communication and digital media at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and is the author of To See and Be Seen: The Environments, Interactions, and Identities Behind News Images (Rowman & Littlefield, 2019).

Featured

Dr. Glen Thomas is a senior lecturer (associate professor) at the Queensland University of Technology, where he teaches corporate writing and editing, science communication, and academic writing.