Webinar_Slides_Reviewers are unhappy with peer review.pdf

Reviewers are unhappy with peer review

2. Peer Review will never again work the way it used to…
... the system is open to abuse ..... or simply laziness .... &
(-> Retractions, etc)
… because researchers dislike being subjected to direct marketing
(-> “We all get 00s of emails” -> Suspicious of journals / publishers)
(-> “I’m not being rewarded or recognized for peer review”)
(-> “I’m working for free, while publishers ....”
2
Source: Reviewer Credits2024
What’s the Issue?

3. 3
Reviewersnever received
any training39%
Reviewers decline review requests
article is outside their area of expertise71%
Journal editorssaying the hardest part of their job is
finding willing reviewers75%
Reviewers are unhappy with peer review –and so are publishers
3
Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06602-y, LinkedIn, Reviewer Credits2023
Peer Review takes on average 6 hours of work without creating any recognition or credit
–would you do it?
15,000 years of peer
review performed in
2020 alone
50% of all reviews
are performed by
10% of the reviewers
On average4.73
reviews p.a. per
reviewer

4. CONFIDENTIAL 4
THE
REVIEWER
CREDITS
PORTFOLIO
Reviewer Identity
Protect the integrity of your publications
with ID, personal and academic email, and
biometric verification of your peer
reviewers.
Reviewer Rewarding
Reward your reviewers with Credit Points
redeemable against services available at
unique discounts. We can also provide
monetary incentives
Reviewer Certification
Recognize your peer reviewers’ extensive
efforts with a cross-publisher certification
Reviewer Network
Tap into a resource of ready-to-review
researchers worldwide to enhance
your publication cycle and impact
Reviewer Finder
Find and scout best-fit peer reviewers
efficiently and effectively
What do we do?

5. “The process used to judge the
quality of academic papers
submitted for publication in
scholarly journals”
Perceptions of peer review
“Peer reviewed papers are
thought to be reliable because
they have undergone this
process before publication”

6. Type of peer review

7. What different kinds of peer review
do international journals use?
Check journal instructions before submitting. Which kind is used? Do you have an option to select?
Source: PLoS

8. What are peer reviewers checking for?

9. as an author:
✔Enhance article’s
chances of acceptance
✔More effectively
respond to comments
Understanding peer review
as an authorvs. as a reviewer
as a reviewer:
✔Comment constructively
on the work of others
✔Develop a key
transferrable skill
(performing peer review)

10. Single-blind
Double-blind
Transparent
Transferable
Reviewer is anonymous to the author
Both reviewer and author are anonymous
Reviewer comments published with article
Sharing of peer review comments
between journals/publishers
FAQ: Peer Review Models
www.reviewercredits.com/reviewer-signup/
www.reviewercredits.com/courses/peer-reviewer-power-up/
!
!

11. Everyone can see what the paper went
through to get published
ReaderFeel confident the study was
thoroughly evaluated by experts
ReviewerLikely to be less biased, more
thorough, and more constructive
Why is Open Peer Review good?

12. But, do researchers like it?

13. But, do researchers like it?

14. The figure shows the
author opt-in rate across
the different research
areas for 787 published
papers. The average opt-
in across the journal is
about 60%.
But, do researchers like it?

15. Trial from Elsevier
But, do researchers like it?

16. “Ourfindingssuggestthatopenpeerreviewdoesnot
compromisetheinnerworkingsofthepeerreview
system.Indeed,wedidnotfindanysignificantnegative
effectsonreferees’willingnesstoreview,their
recommendations,orturn-aroundtime.”
“Interestingly, we found that the tone of the report was
less negative and subjective…”
But, do researchers like it?

17. 17
Single-blind
Double-blind
Transparent
Transferable
Reviewer is anonymous to the author
Both reviewer and author are anonymous
Reviewer comments published with article
Sharing of peer review comments
between journals/publishers
FAQ: Peer Review Models
www.reviewercredits.com/reviewer-signup/
www.reviewercredits.com/courses/peer-reviewer-power-up/
!
!

18. Editors, Editors, and You
A handy field guide for academic publishing
We can help you crack the system
Effective communication is key to hack academic publishing
Journal Managing Editor
Role: Provide ‘business
perspective’
Natural Habitat: Corporate office
Subject understanding:
Often zero
Language Editor
Role: Edit the English
Natural Habitat: At home
Subject understanding: Deep
Academic Editor
Role: Control journal content
Natural Habitat: University
Subject understanding: Deep
YOU
The author

19. Submission | Cover Letter
The cover letter is crucial!
•Don’t waste the opportunity to “sell”
your work
•Don’t write something dull or derivative
(“Please consider this manuscript for
publication in your esteemed journal”
etc.)
•Do tell the editor why they should take
your work seriously

20. Submission | Cover Letter
Maximise your chances of success!
The cover letter is one of the first sections
of the paper an editor will read, so make it count!
Why is the topic important?
Why are the results significant?
What is the key result? (the breakthrough)
Why is this an advance on previous work?
Why are you submitting to this journal?
Provide reviewer suggestions

21. Submission | Cover Letter
The worst kind of cover letter (No cover letter)

22. Submission | Cover Letter
The (almost) worst kind of cover letter (Boringcover letter)
Dear editor,
Please find our paper enclosed, which we hope you
will find interesting.
Sincerely,
Gareth Dyke

23. Submission | Cover Letter
“Attention Editor!” Example of a GOODcover letter:
Dear [editor’s name, spelled correctly],
Please find our original research article, [title of paper],
which we are submitting for publication in [journal
name]. We believe your readers would benefit from our
new findings in the field of [specialty].
Past studies have investigated [research problem],
however, [gap in research]. Our key findings were…
[findings]. Our study advances on previous work in
that [why your findings are significant].
We would like to suggest the following people as
peer reviewers:

24. Submission | Cover Letter

25. The First Step of Article Submission:
Editorial Triage
Criteria considered by “desk editors” at journals:
•Does it fit with the journal scope?
•Does this article have a clear message?
•Is it original?
•Is it important?
•Is it true? and …
•Is it relevant to our readers?
You have to “sell yourself”to get through triage
High Impact Factor journals wantto maintain high rejection rates
9/10 papers sent to Natureand Scienceget rejected beforepeer review

26. Most Important Point:
Writing to editors: Communication is key
Hi,
where is my paper?
I've waited two months.
Looking forward to an
immediate reply.
Dear Editor,
I am writing to ask if I can
do something to help
speed up my recent
submission to your
journal?
Can I make some
suggestions for additional
peer-reviewers?
Example
of a Good
email
Example
of a BAD
email

27. Review Responses
Tips for Responding to Reviewers’ Comments –from an
Editor’s or Reviewer’s Points of View
Once reviewed: Comments will determine likely acceptance
•Minor versus Major revisions
•Major >Back to the same reviewers
•Minor >Decision made by the editor
•How to respond?
Be comprehensive, show your editor you take this process seriously
Materials you need for re-submission
Perseverance will be key to success

28. Review Responses
Make sure editors and peer reviewers feel good about your responses.
If they feel good, they are more likely to give your article a positive review.
Good and Bad Sentence Starters for Responding Reviewers’ Comments
GOOD EXAMPLE BAD EXAMPLE
We would like to thank the reviewer for the interest on this topic…I do not think the reviewers understand my point…
The Reviewer has correctly pointed out that…It is not necessary to change according to the reviewers’
suggestion because…
We acknowledge that…, yet…We simply do not have such data…
We concur with the Reviewer that…; nonetheless…Repeating the experiences/analysis would not actually change
our conclusion…
‘Thank you for the valuable comments
‘This valuable insight is much appreciated
‘These comments significantly enhanced the quality of our work’

29. Effectively Responding to Review Comments
Response to reviews (= editorial summary)
We would like to thank the two peer reviewers who worked on our paper for their
considerable efforts and for the time they devoted to our work.
We have made almost all the changes requested and enclose a revised manuscript
version (changes to our paper can be seen in red in the main document and
figure captions).
Our responses to comments received in review are summarised in this document,
interleaved in red.

30. Effectively Responding to Review Comments
Reviewer #1
In my opinion, the main issue with this paper is that all the analyses should be
repeated using a probability-based approach.
We would like to thank Reviewer #1 for this insightful and accurate comment. We
have re-worked all our analyses, as requested.
Please use American English spelling throughout (e.g., color not colour).
Thank you for this editorial comment. We have corrected our paper throughout.

31. Reponses to Revisions
We will provide you with an
email template after the webinar

32. Paper Taking too Much Time?
We will provide you with an
email template after the webinar

33. Paper Rejected!
This happens more often that not
If you genuinely think that your research was important, well done,
well-written and deserves to reach the journal's audience, you can
write an appeal letter to the editor.

34. Be Confident and Believein Your Work
This is one of the keys to success as
an international researcher
We will provide you with an email template after the webinar

35. What’s Wrong Here?
Dear Editor,
Hello, and thank you for reviewing my manuscript during your busy schedule.
I have made some minor modifications and added two more authors who also
contributed to my manuscript. In addition, the introduction of the corresponding
author is added to facilitate communication with peers.
The revised title page is in the attachment…
Actual email received by a journal:

36. DON’TTry to Add Authors to a Paper
After it’s Accepted!
•Sending a paper to a journal requires all authors to
know about and support submission.
•Trying to add authors after acceptance immediately
causes alarm at the editorial office.
•Any changes/additions to authorship after journal
submission will require explanation/approval from
all currently listed authors.
•Journals hatehaving to deal with these situations!

37. COMMUNICATION IS KEY:
MAXIMISE YOUR SUCCESS
ANY
QUESTIONS?
ANY ISSUES?
JUST ASK…

38. ReviewerCreditsis free for reviewers!
Join us at reviewercredits.com
ReviewerCredits.comisaninnovativeandindependentplatformsupportingthepeer
reviewprocessbyvalidatingandcertifyingpeerreview,providingtangiblerewardsto
reviewers.
Secondgenerationstart-up.MemberofCOPEandORCID.
Getrecognisedandrewardedforpeerreviewactivity
Trustedcertificationforyourefforts!
ReviewerCredits