How Journals Should Address the Challenges in the Peer Review Process Part 1

Posted on : March 20th 2023

Welcome to the first part of a two-part article, How Journals Should Address the Challenges in the Peer Review Process. In this part, we will explore the peer review process and the inherent contradictions in the process. The second part will examine the challenges and ideas for improving the peer review process. You can read the second part here

How can you be sure that the breakthroughs published in scientific papers—estimated to be in millions each year¹ – are valid? Or how can a layperson or even a scientist be sure that the findings in the 16000² articles submitted monthly in arXiv.org will stand the test of time? This is where peer-review journals step in and give the much-wanted authenticity and credibility to a finding, breakthrough, or discovery.

Peer-reviewed journals publish good, high-quality, and pioneering articles written by experts on their discoveries. The journals bring credibility to these articles by engaging experts from the same domain as the writer to review the articles. This process is called peer review, which is indispensable for maintaining the integrity of science, and rigor of scientific publications. Furthermore, peer review is integral for establishing trust in the validity of the conclusions.

Nevertheless, not all peer-reviewed papers are free from errors and scientifically accurate. Moreover, there are many issues plaguing the world of peer review. For example, some reviewed papers do not meet the disproportionate expectations placed on the process. Consequently, the credibility of the process is impacted.

Before we venture deep into the peer review process, let us look at the process and the challenges. We will cover the ways and means of improving the peer-review process in Part 2 of this article.

The Peer-Review Process in Journals

A journal editor sends a submitted manuscript to at least two reviewers after ensuring these reviewers are experts in the field and have no affiliation with the authors or their work. These expert reviewers provide feedback to the editors after reading and assessing the manuscript.

The reviewers often asked for clarifications, more accurate data, etc. Once the author makes the necessary changes, the journal accepts the article for publication. However, at all times, the journal reserves the right to accept or reject the manuscript for publication.

If we are to break down the peer review process—there are six basic steps. Most journals use the steps below or their variations based on business needs.

• Author submits a scientific paper to a journal
• Journal checks whether the paper meets the submission criteria
• Paper is sent to reviewers from the same discipline or experienced in the research methodology
• Reviewers review and recommend whether the paper should be accepted/rejected
• Journal decides to publish the paper based on the reviews
• Accepted article is moved to the production stage for copy editing, proof creation, formatting, etc.

Why is the Peer-Review Process Complicated?

There are no two opinions on the importance of the peer review process in developing high-quality research papers. At the same time, some roadblocks make many think the process is challenging.

Some critics have concluded "the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts”³ . According to Dr. Irene Hames, an independent research-publication and peer-review specialist, “there have always been criticisms of peer review, but they are now more visible and the subject of much public discussion and debate”⁴ . She added, “surveys show that researchers generally want to improve peer review rather than get rid of it”⁵.

Let us look at some of the fundamental elements of the peer review process that flummox the journals, the process, and the reviewers:

1. Journal editors scour journal papers and Google Scholar to find potential reviewers. However, they find that increasingly scholars across fields are likely to reject their invitations. Reviewers cite the lack of time, competing review demands, and conflict of interest as reasons for declining or not responding to peer-review invitations ⁶ .
2. For scientists, reviewing a manuscript for a scholarly publication is a time-consuming job they do to advance science. Many also do it out of a sense of reciprocating the act of other researchers' peer reviewing their manuscripts. They are not paid for peer reviewing, and there are no tangible rewards. According to some experts, paying reviewers for reviewing will reduce the delays in receiving reviews⁷ .
3. It is time-consuming, with several sources quoting the average time spent on each review as 6 hours or more⁸ . According to another research, peer reviewers spend over 15 million hours yearly on redundant or unnecessary reviews⁹ . Both estimates reflect the hours spent outside regular working hours by reviewers, some of whom may be working on their own manuscripts.
4. Today, there is a veritable firehose of articles being submitted. It is causing what some journals have reported as reviewer fatigue among scientists. This is leading to a large number of reviewers rejecting peer-review invitations. Consequently, there is a delay in publishing high-quality research.
5. Often, it is difficult for authors to understand the criteria by which a journal accepts or rejects manuscripts after peer review. Sometimes, the decision contradicts the acceptance criteria stated in the journal's section. What is more galling is that there is no way an author can appeal for redressal as a journal’s decision is deemed final.
6. A technology solution that facilitates timelines in the peer-review process by removing non-value-added operations that impede the process is a significant lacuna in the peer-review process.

From finding reviewers to the manuscript acceptance criteria with a bit of scattered communication in between, there are stumbling blocks that complicate peer review in a number of dimensions. As it is a critical function in journal publishing, there is a pressing need to analyze the significant gaps in the process and identify core themes, including inconsistency, bias including gender bias in reviewer selection and reviewing female author’s work, paper retraction due to data manipulation, low sample size, conflicts of interest, etc.,

This is the first part of a two-part article, How Journals Should Address the Challenges in the Peer Review Process. In this part, we explored the peer review process and the inherent contradictions in the process. The second part will examine the challenges and ideas for improving the peer review process. You can read the second part here.

References -

1. https://phys.org/news/2022-04-millions-papers-published-year-scientists.html
2. https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/brcp-parasite-publishers-report-excerpt/
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/#ref2
4. https://www.editage.com/insights/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress
5. https://www.editage.com/insights/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress
6. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/leap.1006
7. https://www.science.org/content/article/450-question-should-journals-pay-peer-reviewers
8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5198655/
9. https://www.aje.com/arc/peer-review-process-15-million-hours-lost-time/
10. https://h2020integrity.eu/peer-review-crisis-reviewer-fatigue/