Should you agree to peer review?
Being invited to be a peer reviewer for a journal or a book series can be very flattering and exciting. But, it also represents a significant responsibility; you are not only agreeing to use your expertise to evaluate (and sometimes improve) another researcher’s work but also committing to delivering your report within a specific timeframe.
THE CHALLENGE
Peer review is an essential element of the scholarly communications ecosystem – expert evaluations of new research are required to assess the validity, quality and originality of the study. This evaluation is necessary to:
- Ensure the academic rigour of the study
- Protect the reputation of the journal or book series
- Make sure that only high quality knowledge is disseminated within the scholarly and scientific communities
But, as more journals are launched and more researchers are trying to get published, and as there is a growing emphasis on speedy publication with short submission-to-acceptance times, the pressures on reviewers are increasing. This is exacerbated by a rising number of predatory publishers and predatory journals also soliciting reviews.
With a growing number of review requests in your inbox, how do you decide which requests to accept and which to reject?
THE KNE CLUE
When you receive a request it is important to consider whether you have the time and expertise needed for the project. To help you make this decision, we have created a handy checklist below.
Do you have the necessary subject knowledge?
The value of the review for the author and editor lies in the specialist knowledge and insights provided by the reviewer. Don’t agree to review unless you feel you are the best person for the job.
Do you know the journal?
Predatory journals can also request peer reviews, and you might not want to be involved with publications of this type. Use helpful resources such as Think.Check. Submit. to evaluate unknown journals.
Do you have time to conduct the review?
Journals and authors both have publication deadlines, and it is important that you can deliver your review on time. Don’t agree to a review if you know you will be unable to do so.
Do you fully understand the journal’s scope?
A vital part of the reviewer’s role is to support the editor in deciding whether the submission is a good fit for the journal, aligning with the scope, and matching the expectations of the target readership. Make sure you are able to do this.
Are there any conflicts of interest which might influence your review?
Reviews are supposed to be unbiased and independent. Inform the editor if you think there might be a conflict of interest.
Do you know what is required?
Confirm the type of review the editor wants, whether they have guidance documents or a checklist, and how they wish to receive the review. Then make your decision.
By considering these points, you can decide whether you should accept or decline the invitation to review. You don’t need to feel bad about declining, especially if you do not feel you have the requisite expertise. But, remember that if you simply don’t have time to deliver within the initial timeframe – but would like to perform the review – then you can always write back to the editorial board and suggest a new delivery date.