A Doctoral Researcher’s Reflections on Peer Review

By Devyn Glass, PhD candidate in Psychology at the University of Sussex

Click here to read the companion piece to this post, written by the SAGE Peer Review Team.

Peer review is a core part of academic publishing and it is crucial in evaluating academic work to assess the suitability of a paper for publication. The process is designed to improve the quality of a manuscript, with reviewers offering constructive feedback to help authors improve their papers and to evaluate the paper’s scientific rigor.

Early Career Researchers (ECRs) are often encouraged to act as reviewers for academic journals and conferences. Engaging in peer review from this perspective can be useful for budding authors looking to submit their own papers for publication. However, there can also be barriers for those early in their careers. Without a sufficient number of publications, for example, it can be difficult to demonstrate that they possess the necessary knowledge and expertise.

Training and support for PhD students and ECRs would no doubt benefit publishers, particularly as academic workloads increase and with the push for rapid reviews as a result of Covid-19. Making the process more accessible will not only increase and diversify the pool of reviewers but also benefit individuals, potentially increasing the overall quality of scholarly output.

Benefits for Doctoral Researchers

· It is an ideal time to receive training

Peer review is considered an essential academic service. It can be seen as a core competency for Post-Doctoral Researchers and those further along in their academic careers. The opportunity for training and supervision during doctoral study makes it an ideal time to learn the basics and gain some practice. There are online resources and many blog posts that give an excellent overview of the process. Time dedicated to Peer Review during doctoral study will help in preparation for an academic career, making PhD students more appealing candidates and helping smooth the transition into more independent academic work.

· It can improve academic writing

Reviewing the work of others can also improve one’s own writing, which can be a great benefit while writing theses and preparing manuscripts for publication. Chittum and Bryant (2014) recognise a need for improvement in the academic writing skills of many Doctoral Researchers, which they argue are sub-par! They highlight the benefits of professional peer review for nurturing these skills, arguing that a practice-based approach, involving the critical appraisal of others’ scholarly writing, might be more beneficial than traditional writing programmes to improve academic writing skills.

· It provides a window into the publishing process

Many Doctoral Researchers will be aiming to publish papers as a part of their PhD. This can be a notoriously tricky process for a PhD student, with desk rejection being a common experience. Acting as a reviewer can help identification of common pitfalls in academic writing and communication. Critically analysing the work of others can help develop a critical eye, which can be readily applied to your own work. Reviewing can also be useful in building an understanding of your field, providing insight into the types of papers that are being submitted for publication.

Disadvantages for Doctoral Researchers

· Increasing a potentially heavy workload

Peer review is often perceived as a burden to academics. Countless review requests are declined due to lack of capacity to take on ‘extra’, non-essential work. Doctoral Researchers are no strangers to pulling long hours and are often juggling numerous responsibilities, with teaching, secondary projects, and part time work. Peer review is therefore not a high priority for Doctoral Researchers. This leaves one wondering about the sustainability of the peer review system. With career progression equalling a likely increase in workload, the expectation to review is daunting for those about to embark on an academic career.

· Lack of recognition

Academics can receive recognition for their reviewing work via Publons. However, a recent nature article highlights that junior academics frequently ‘ghost-write’ reviews for more senior colleagues without recognition. Working with a colleague on a review can offer training and practice, providing this coincides with effective guidance and feedback. However, ghost-writing and supportive co-reviewing are distinct. The latter typically involves recognising the contribution of the junior colleague, as opposed to using some or all of the co-review without credit. These practices should be separated to enable ECRs to gain demonstrable peer review experience, which can support their academic reputation and future job applications.

· Lack of feedback and training

The issue of ghost-writing opens up other lines of questioning about the quality of training and feedback that Doctoral Researchers receive when starting out as a reviewer. With lots of guidance online about how to get started and structuring a review, Doctoral Researchers should be well equipped. However, as we know, imposter syndrome is alive and well, particularly in the doctoral community. Recognising when you have written a good review can be difficult, particularly without guidance from a mentor or supervisor, making it difficult to refine your practice early on.

Improving the process for Doctoral Researchers

· Training

Incorporating peer review training into PhD programmes could give Doctoral Researchers a solid understanding of the foundations. Learning the ‘how-to’ early on means that when the opportunity arises, PhD students are more confident in accepting a request to review. It is clear that this training needs some thought. Guides on how to become a reviewer are rife. However, a webinar format enables rich and interactive Q&A’s and ensures Doctoral Researchers carve out time to dedicate to training. Formal involvement of PhD students as initial reviewers, where they can see other reviews and gain some feedback from editors, would also help build skills and provide practice-based training.

· Open peer review

Open peer review might benefit the academic development of Doctoral Researchers. This process would allow those learning how the review to see the points made my other reviewers. It could also provide authors with insight into the preparation of a high-quality journal article, improving the quality of their own written pieces. Open peer review also increases recognition for reviewers. Not only is this service listed on Publons, but the names of reviewers are frequently cited on the paper itself, making reviewers names much more prominent and potentially recognisable across different reviews and one’s own manuscripts. 

· Clarity of benefits

Some publishers, like SAGE, offer certain benefits for their reviewers, such as discounts on SAGE books and free access to e-books and SAGE journals for 60 days. However, these benefits are not always clear for Doctoral Researchers and many resources can be available or requested through a University’s Library budget. While the question of paid peer review continues to be debated, benefits that are more meaningful might entice new reviewers and increase the output of current reviewers. Fee waivers for publishing an article or the opportunity to make one’s own submissions Open Access might be more attractive for many academics.

Conclusion

Formally involving PhD students in the peer review process by tweaking the training and opportunities currently offered could benefit Doctoral Researchers individually and the peer review process overall. It can help individuals build academic and transferable skills and increase and diversify the pool of reviewers. Peer review is an important part of training for a career in academia and being a part of the academic dialogue can shape the professional development of PhD students. However, there is a concern that this is more of a burden than a benefit. The dialogue and process around peer review, particularly to become more accessible for early career academics, may need updating for the practice to remain positive and productive for everyone involved.

About the Author