Understanding the Peer Review Process
The peer review system can significantly influence a scholar’s career, especially in the early stages.
For authors, receiving negative feedback or facing heavy-handed edits can halt research efforts, causing delays that might jeopardize prospects for tenure or career advancement.
This situation creates an inherent power imbalance that can occasionally be manipulated.
Sadly, many graduate programs do not adequately prepare students for managing interactions with editors and reviewers.
This essay seeks to demystify the peer review process and offer actionable insights for both authors and reviewers, fostering a more positive and productive dialogue.
The Roles of Reviewers and Editors
Firstly, it is crucial to recognize that editors and reviewers play distinct roles in evaluating an author’s manuscript.
Editors may not have specialized knowledge of the subject and thus rely on objective reviewers to provide context.
Ultimately, the editor—often alongside an editorial board—makes the final call.
Open and effective communication between authors and editors is essential in this context.
Reviewers are tasked with situating the work within the broader scholarly environment.
They evaluate its overall significance and consider several key questions: Does the research contribute to the field? Does it challenge existing perspectives? Are the sources relevant and up to date? And does the manuscript fit the journal or press’s focus? Additionally, they should also contemplate whether revisions can enhance the chances of publication.
It is critical for reviewers to engage with the authors’ intentions.
They should help authors navigate the publication landscape rather than impose unrelated demands or expectations.
Regrettably, when the reviewer strays from this approach, it can lead to frustrating experiences for authors.
Discrepancies between the manuscript’s goals and the reviewer’s comments can leave authors confused, often questioning whether their core arguments have been understood.
The anonymity that shields reviewers sometimes breeds incivility, resulting in unhelpful critiques.
In these dynamics, the editor serves as a vital intermediary, balancing authors’ aspirations with reviewers’ insights.
The relationship can become complicated, especially when reviewers are colleagues of the editor, entangled in personal dynamics or academic politics.
Based on our observations, editors tend to fall into one of two categories, which in turn shapes how authors should interact with them:
- Supportive Editors: These are the ideal helpers who work collaboratively with authors, valuing their unique voices and research.
They focus on whether authors meet their intended goals, steering clear of imposing their own biases.
Supportive editors are adept at discerning constructive feedback from mere ego-driven critiques from reviewers.
- Directive Editors: Conversely, this type of editor often prioritizes their vision for an author’s work, which can lead to significant confusion and frustration.
They might overlook the authors’ original intent in favor of personal preferences, leading to extensive revisions that can completely alter the manuscript’s original focus.
Such back-and-forth can unnecessarily extend the publication process and sometimes lead to rejection rooted in the editor’s dissatisfaction rather than the quality of the manuscript itself.
Cultivating Positive Editor-Author Relationships
Ideally, the relationship between authors and editors should feel more like a collaborative partnership than a combative struggle.
Authors must view themselves as equal participants in the process.
If there’s a disconnect with the editor, swiftly withdrawing the submission may be the best course of action—similar to recognizing a bad first date; chances for improvement are slim.
Especially in cases of revision and resubmission, authors must advocate for themselves graciously.
It’s essential to communicate clearly with the editor about the review process before resubmitting.
If the editor signals that the manuscript will be assessed by new reviewers, withdrawing might be the best option, as this situation rarely results in favorable outcomes.
A transparent review process is fundamental, and if an editor is hesitant to share their practices, it should raise concerns about the integrity of the peer review process.
Open communication helps to establish more balanced discussions.
If authors receive conflicting evaluations from multiple reviewers, it’s reasonable for the editor to seek a third opinion before returning the manuscript.
Providing a synthesized summary of reviews—which outlines areas of concurrence and dissent—can contribute to a more constructive revision process.
When disagreements occur, it’s fair for editors to seek input from the authors, keeping in mind that it is their scholarship at stake.
Initiating dialogue with editors is vital for authors.
A phone conversation, accompanied by a written recap, can clarify expectations.
When responding to reviewer comments, authors should precisely indicate which suggestions they will implement and which they will not.
While some flexibility is beneficial, authors should feel confident in presenting their rationale for disregarding certain recommendations and seek the editor’s approval for any deviations.
However, there will be times when all efforts lead to unsatisfactory outcomes.
One author recently faced a situation where, despite having a clear revision plan, a subsequent rejection stemmed from a miscommunication with the editorial board, which didn’t recognize an agreed-upon change as sufficient.
This underscores the importance of alignment between the editorial board and the author, so that authors aren’t left grappling with setbacks due to internal misalignment.
Finally, we want to touch on the sentiment that academics should refrain from peer reviewing since it often goes unpaid.
While some may undervalue voluntary work, responsible peer reviewing carries inherent importance.
Just like volunteering in community organizations, donating time to this process can lead to significant contributions.
Moreover, acknowledging that others spend time reviewing your work reinforces the concept of reciprocity within academic circles.
Additionally, peer review fosters a deeper understanding of scholarly dynamics and contributes to individual professional growth.
Ultimately, the collective goal is to enhance writing and elevate scholarship.
Both Frank Argote-Freyre and Christopher M. Bellitto, esteemed history professors at Kean University in Union, N.J., offer their extensive insights into the peer review process, informed by their experiences as authors and editors.
Argote-Freyre specializes in Latin American history and regularly serves in peer review roles, while Bellitto, a medieval scholar, has editorial responsibilities with Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, alongside being an academic editor with Paulist Press.
Source: Insidehighered