By Helen Leedham, Peer Review Manager and Imran Ahmed, Editorial Assistant, The Physiological Society
Welcome to Peer Review Week 2020! This week is all about sharing insights and thinking about improvements in the peer review process, but most of all sending a huge, “we couldn’t do it without you” thank you to all our peer reviewers!
Peer review is the process by which manuscripts submitted to academic journals are checked by experts for everything from the rigour of the experimental design and execution to making sure nothing has been fraudulently reported or fabricated. Two peer reviewers per paper is usual, although we can approach many more before the most appropriate reviewers are available and secured.
In the last 12 months, over 1300 people from 42 different countries have reviewed for The Journal of Physiology and 675 people from 41 countries for Experimental Physiology. There are three dedicated members of the Peer Review team at The Physiological Society, who provide the administrative support to 150+ Editors and ensure that each of the 2000+ manuscripts submitted to The Journal of Physiology and Experimental Physiology annually is assessed appropriately and fairly.
Almost universally, peer reviewers are unpaid and complete the task on top of their research, teaching or clinical duties, on the understanding that others will do the same for manuscripts they submit. This is all done with the aim of maintaining and improving standards in the scientific record. It is an exercise in trust and support that, despite the invention of the ballpoint pen, fax machine and internet, has changed little in the past 350 years.
Throughout its long history peer review has been an area alive with debate and contention, around questions such as:
- Is double-blind peer review, where the authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process, the fairest approach? Or does the lack of transparency allow for harsher criticism or poor-quality reviews?
- Does single-blind peer review, where reviewers know who the authors are, whilst remaining anonymous themselves, lead to unfair bias or deliberate attempts to sabotage scientific rivals? Or does it offer the best compromise of being open about where the work comes from but allowing reviewers to offer honest appraisal without the fear of affecting future collaborations?
- Does open peer review, with the possibility of publishing reviewers’ comments, open identities and open participation, strengthen scientific publishing or add to the noise?
- Why aren’t reviewers paid for the work they do?
It’s possible to see pros and cons on all sides but there is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all solution in the near future.
Many believe it is unjust that publishers make money from the voluntary effort of reviewers and academic Editors, but without journal income The Physiological Society would not be as well-placed to support its scientific community via online and in-person conferences and networking sessions, grants, policy work, knowledge exchange, and professional development opportunities. Peer review is a global, community effort to maintain standards in academic publishing, it is something which researchers, authors, academic societies and journal publishers should be proud of.
Whether you’re thrilled to be asked to review a manuscript, as a mark of your standing in the scientific community and an opportunity to keep up-to-date with the latest research, or you dread another task on your to do list, maintaining trust in peer review, by academic communities, legislators and the public is key.
Although we recognise the benefit in publishing work that hasn’t been peer reviewed, for example on preprint servers such as BioRxiv, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has shown the confusion and potential harm caused when using non-peer reviewed literature is turned to as the source of facts and knowledge. Journals too have recognised the need to be able to respond to global events and provide faster, and reliable peer review to get vital research and findings out to clinicians and policy makers as quickly as possible.
The quality of peer review for our journals remains incredibly high overall. No process is flawless but it’s undertaken with a high level of dedication and rigour, all thanks to all our reviewers and Editors who engage so fully in the process. We hope that those who submit to us, whether we publish the work or not, find the feedback to be constructive and that their research output is improved as a result of our processes.
At The Physiological Society we pride ourselves on publishing high-quality research and are proud to have an excellent global pool of reviewers on which we can rely to ensure we select scientifically-rigorous papers. Peer review enables trust in the scientific record and is a fantastic global effort. Thank you to all involved!
Please note that all views expressed on The Physiological Society’s blog reflect those of the author(s) and not of The Society.