A letter to Santa

I've been a good reviewer, not given in to unwarranted comments on laguage, not given in to unjustified criticism, and always submitting my reports on time. 

I think I deserve some gifts 😝

Peer reviewer recognition wouldn't go amiss. 

Here are some thoughts on how to make the academic reviewers in your life a bit happier, relaxed, and less prone to behaving like Reviewer 2.


1. Institutions should allocate time for peer review within their faculty appointments

The time it takes to do a good job with a peer review is often underestimated. ⏳ Given that this work is not financially compensated, at least time for it should be granted as part of the expected commitment to the scholarly community.

2. Graduate courses could teach peer review, much like they teach statistics

There are techniques, concepts, and skills required to perform peer review. It is important to learn and apply them correctly. Some new AI tools could be helpful, and ethical use of these is an integral part of the discussion nowadays. 🤖
 

3. Experience in peer review, like publication of a manuscript, should be required for graduation

Learning to accept constructive criticism and considering limitations in approach is important, but so is learning to give knowledgeable feedback. 🎓 Experience in both sides of the peer review process is a relevant learning experience that translates outside academia.
 

4. Journals and publishers should publish a list of active reviewers as frequently as they divulge impact factors 

A measure of esteem and recognition within a field is an appointment to the editorial board of a respected peer-reviewed publication. 📰 This shows engagement from the reviewer and the willingness to contribute to the dissemination of knowledge.
 

5. Academic CVs should contain a section for published reviews

Open and collaborative peer reviews are as much a part of the current publishing landscape as manuscripts describing original research. 📝 These reports are wonderful accounts of the evolution of a scientific discussion, and establish expertise in the field for authors and reviewers.
 

6. Peer review should be recognized by funding bodies and required as an output in grant reports

Publications and patents have recently been accompanied in grant reports by lists of community engagement, public dissemination, and other outreach activities. 💁 Peer reviews should also be required as an outcome of the investment of public funds.

The year's end is a time of reflection. Maybe the conversation on how to achieve these 👆could be had. Perhaps researchers could start by acknowledging the importance of peer review in scholarly communications. That would be a gift at any time of the year!

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Leave a comment!

How to spot fake reviewers: a beginner's guide

Image
For those unfamiliar with or new to academic publishing, peer review manipulation is hard to spot. This is mainly because most peer review reports are still confidential documents that stay buried deep in academic journal's editorial offices. As long as this continues to be the default, recognising good and bad peer reviews is difficult enough... now we have to worry about fake peer review as well?! 😒 Well, yes. Yes, we do. The peer review process in academic publishing is unlike any other. The style and content of a manuscript are criticized, as are the thought processes that birthed it. Everything from word choice to significance of the research focus is under scrutiny. In traditional peer review formats, reviewers recommend that manuscripts be accepted or rejected. This much power may make some less scrupulous people guiddy... or yearning to rig the system. The refereeing work that is supposed to be one of the garantors of research integrity is itself highly susceptible to ma
Read more

Auditing published papers (part I)

Image
After they have been published, I audit research papers.  Image by @freepik Why? How does that work? 😕 A new revised version of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI) has been produced by Allea , and recognised by the European Commission, one of the world's largest research funding bodies. This revision focuses on a heightened awareness of issues pertaining to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion ( EDI ), but also the General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR ), and even Open Science . I know.. too much legal speak, too many acronyms... 😬 So, let me sum it up for you. 🔊 All institutions, organizations, and individuals that engage in or interact with research must always abide by the principles of: Honesty Respect   Reliability   Accountability  Simple enough, right? Humm.. I analyse papers that have been flagged as "of concern". 😟 The issues I most commonly see have to do with lack of funding or data availability statements, inappropriate citati
Read more

IMHO: why open science should adopt double anonymous peer review

Image
Let's get opinionated... Peer review is still the cornerstone of quality research. This has been repeated by so many during #PeerReviewWeek2023 , it almost lost its meaning to me. I participated in this conversation wholeheartedly, as a freelancer with a variety of roles, from content review to integrity audits.  I’m no longer in academia, but I did my stint there: it’s hard to imagine that many PhD students and postdocs get excited by performing their first peer review. It often results from an invitation trickle-down and, although it can be regarded as a learning opportunity, peer review is hard, time-consuming, unpaid, and often unrecognized work. Open participation is often regarded by researchers as the fairer, more constructive and productive process, leading to improvement in the quality of the finished version of the works. This is the iterative version of having a preprint published in a stable server, with access to all versions of the work, and “comments on”.   The
Read more