Perspectives from Atop the Peer-Review Hierarchy

 

The peer-review process reigns supreme in the dissemination of research. Manuscripts that do not survive the critiques of fellow academics are unlikely to make it to the screens or desks of other researchers. This process can seem grueling to authors at times; many have experienced harsh reviews, delayed decisions, and inevitable rejections. But editors often see the peer-review process from a more inspired lens. Several editors graciously offered to share their insight on the peer-review process with eDialogue. 

 

Editors-in-chief are the culmination of a scientific process that can include reviewers, consulting editors, and associate editors—all of whom volunteer their time and thoughts to provide constructive feedback on the research of others. Highly revered in their fields, these gatekeepers “make very important decisions and play an important role in shaping the incentive structure in our field,” according to Dr. Simine Vazire¹. While there are limited structures in place to hold editors accountable, Dr. Heejung Kim² notes that there is typically “sufficient consensus among reviewers…that the decision is not difficult.” But it’s clear that being an editor fosters critical thinking; they’re charged with determining which research deserves to be made available to the scientific community. Dr. David Sherman³ feels most gratified in his role as an editor when he witnesses “a manuscript advancing and…improving to the point where it will make a significant contribution to science.”

 

Being an editor is potentially the best way to stay up-to-date with scientific literature in your field, according to Dr. Cynthia Graham⁴. Both she and Dr. Vazire find the process of reading submissions stimulating. These editors encourage researchers who are interested in getting involved in the editorial process to nominate themselves for relevant positions. Dr. Graham says that it is not only reasonable, but also acceptable to request to be on the editorial board for a journal. The caveat? First establish yourself as a trustworthy reviewer—an achievement that Dr. Graham narrows down to two traits: quality and timeliness. 

 

A quality reviewer should demonstrate concordance between their recommended decision and their feedback to the authors; reviewers should also provide clear guidance on what would make the manuscript publishable in their eyes. And consistently completing reviews before the deadline will gain you favor with the journal’s editor. Behind the scenes, editors are able to rate reviewers—ratings that are collected in a database and can be accessed by journals who share a publisher. 

 

Heed this advice and contribute to the progression of science. Whatever your role in the peer-review process, you can help realize Dr. Vazire’s aspiration to increase the quality of methods used in research and the credibility of claims made in a paper. Your active involvement is sincerely valued by those at the top.