In the field of scientific publishing, the peer review process has been a sheet anchor around which contemporary developments in all academic fields are either accepted as robust science or discarded into the bin. Journal editors count on peer review to make important decisions with far-reaching consequences. Paradoxically, both transparency as well as blinding are important in this process for it to work as intended. Considered to be a selfless, not for profit activity, the peer review process has often had its share of criticism. Professional rivalry, a delay in publishing, allegations of plagiarism and disagreement with reviewers’ opinion are some issues and only a tip of the iceberg. Any journal editor would then like to stay clear of this iceberg and be on the lookout for the ‘ideal peer reviewer’. A recent scoping review identifies 13 themes and no less than 73 statements of what a peer reviewer should be! [1] However, one fundamental reality which dawns upon editors sooner or later is that ‘the ideal peer reviewer does not exist !!’ The quest to find this pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is futile and editors need to quickly adapt to what is best available. Nevertheless, the quest continues and we seek anchors to help define the evidence that shapes science.In the lack of the ‘ideal peer reviewer’, journals and editors do embark on training activities to help support professionals to develop and refine their skills in this activity. In this present writeup, let me shortlist a few pearls and pitfalls a journal editor seeks in the ideal peer reviewer. These are probable attributes, and existing and prospective reviewers may take upon as some pointers to help them improve. Being an editor where a double-blinded peer-review process is followed before acceptance, I will focus accordingly. These ‘pearls and pitfalls’ are neither comprehensive nor absolute and at best salient points to help researchers and scientists to focus their energy to improve the quality of peer reviews. Also, there is no hierarchy in them and all attributes are important in themselves.
I will adhere to timelines
The biggest challenge editors face is to deliver a quick and accurate decision. The quick part is something not always in the control of the editors and the time taken for a peer review process is one of the major factors. Despite the best efforts a timeline of 12–16 weeks for first decision is not unusual [2]. In fact, I place this quality foremost for a reason. Even if a peer review is not very helpful to the editor, it needs to be timely. Editors are authors as well and do understand the impatience that accompanies a manuscript submission. A timely regret helps as much in saving precious time. Many journals would in fact un-assign reviewers automatically in case of delay. Though this may sound impolite, the pressure to complete the review process quickly leads to such a practice. Another best practice would be for the reviewer to inform the editor of any expected delay and seek an extension of submission dates. A timely review goes a long way in improving the turnaround time of the journal. In fact, it is observed that most prompt reviewers would submit their recommendations and comments much before the due date. So, it is better to complete the assignment as soon as feasible before the ’procrastination dragon’ strikes !
I will be courteous
Often as an editor, I do have to moderate impolite comments by reviewers intended to be passed on to authors. Unfortunately, this is more common than thought, with more than a half researchers reporting receiving rude comments [3]. This is sad considering this communication is between scientists who are helping each other out. The firewall of secrecy afforded by the blinding process does not permit the reviewers to be impolite and insensitive. The best practice is to be courteous and polite when conveying the remarks. Words need to be chosen well even when rejecting an article. This does not imply that the reviewer has to sugar coat comments. Comments should be objective and precise with a neutral to a positive tone. Any serious comments can be politely conveyed to the editor separately.
I will be constructive
One of the important outcomes of a peer review is not only to accept or reject a manuscript but to improve it. The comments of a good peer reviewer are the key for making the manuscript better. A recent survey amongst researchers conveys that three-quarters of researchers feel that peer review improves research [4]. Towards this end, it is very important that the reviewers give systematic suggestions to improve the manuscript. Good reviewers make suggestions to help authors improve and learn beyond the current submission even when rejecting a manuscript. The best practice would then be to give recommendations to make the manuscript more scientifically robust and readable, the charts easier to comprehend, suggesting published literature that can help interpret results in a better way irrespective of the recommended decision. A sound peer review can be a method of learning in itself both for the author and reviewer.
I will read the scope of the journal
At times the scope of the journal may not match with the manuscript in question. This is important for the reviewer to understand since the peer review may often be contextual. Though most editors would have introduced the journal and its requirements to the reviewer, it is always advisable for a keen reviewer to have a close look at the journal. A multi-speciality journal may have different readership and scope compared to a super-speciality journal. Certain journals have a focus on basic research whereas others might focus on translational research. A comment on the suitability of the research work for the particular journal may then be advisable.
I will re-review manuscripts reviewed by me earlier
Nothing can be more frustrating for an editor to have a set of answered observations on a manuscript and not be re-reviewed. The comments are based on the context of the particular peer reviewer and may be difficult for anyone else to interpret their responses. Such reviewers have been amusingly referred to as FIDDLE (Frequent Inability To Deliver Decisions to Lamenting Editor) by an editor probably as frustrated as me! [5] So if a question/clarification has been sought, the reviewer is morally bound to read the reply and explanation as well. New reviewers may not agree to review such submissions at all leading to a further logjam. Some journal management systems have even started asking questions to the reviewers about their availability for a re-review ab-initio. The best practice would be for peer reviewers to take on assignments in totality and honour requests for re-reviewing.
I WILL NOT agree to the review request unless I sincerely can
It is tempting at times to accept to review only to lose interest in the manuscript a couple of days later. The eagerness to accept a peer review position should be a considered decision. Reviews when accepting a review are making a commitment and should carefully weigh the options of their own expertise, time available, a possible conflict of interest before clicking the ‘accept assignment’. There should not be any pressure on the reviewer to take on the assignment to keep the editor in good humor/stay on the right side of the journal. Rather, editors appreciate a prompt sincere reply expressing inability to review with a reason.
I WILL NOT agree to review and then disappear
The case of the missing reviewer is all too common and would be a leading cause of delay in peer review. Typically, the reviewer agrees to review the manuscript timely. The handling editor would be satisfied with the way things are progressing with the manuscript. As the deadlines for review crosses, the editor in a situation where reviews aren’t complete would probably wait a few days (at times weeks!) more. The Never Responding reviewer has been referred to as ‘NERO’ with a prevalence figure of 0.6% by another editor, again probably as frustrated as me ! [6] I would be pleasantly surprised to find this low a percentage in my journal and this is indeed worth investigating. Ordinarily, reviewers get 2–3 weeks to decide to accept to review followed by another 3 weeks to submit their review. The NeRo somehow does not seem to agree! So kindly do not be the missing reviewer.
I WILL NOT be at variance with my remarks to the editor and author
This may sound a bit strange but is not uncommon! Divergence of opinions on the remarks made to authors and editors. Though it is good to be polite in the reviewer comments, a total contrast in the recommendations to the editor is something that can stump even the most experienced editor. One best practice is to be as objective as possible to the author and avoid judgements. After all, the editor is in full liberty to ignore the comments and decide in a contrary way. Again a copy-paste of the same comments in both boxes loses an opportunity to convey to the editor an opinion. So the best practice would be to remain consistent in both remarks - and give summative opinions to the editors only.
I WILL NOT remember what I did
One of the most appreciable qualities of a peer reviewer is confidentiality. At times it is a bit too tempting for peer reviewers to brag about their role in a particular research article. This is specifically applicable to a double-blinded peer-review process where reviewers and authors are not supposed to know the identity of each other. In a field of work where the number of experts is little, it may not be very difficult to guess the origin of the authors. Not only is this unethical, but often a source of embarrassment to the editors. Sharing of peer review content on public and social platforms is another recent challenge to the confidentiality of the process. The best practice then - “fire and forget” - even if you have reviewed a manuscript of your own spouse !! The Committee of Publishing Ethics does highlight the privileged nature of communication-related to peer review and is best kept as such [7].
I WILL NOT be the copy editor
A common phenomenon seen often with peer reviewers is a line by line grammatical error correction of the manuscript. Though it is appreciable to help improve the language and grammar of the manuscript, it is certainly not the reason the editor has asked for peer review. The editor seeks inputs from the experts about the ‘science’ of the manuscript primarily, language being a secondary concern. Many journals would have language and copy editors who would focus on this aspect prior to publication. The best practice for the reviewers would then be to put in a line or two about the general deficiency in the language skills in the manuscript and not try to correct each line. Also at times, this aspect has already been flagged by the editor and would be communicated to the authors in the next iteration for corrections. The reviewers would do better justice by addressing the research itself.To summarise, peer review has become the bedrock of scientific advancements. Despite its limitations, it remains the only trustworthy way to accept, improve and reject newer scientific developments. This is especially so in medical publishing where the holy grail of a peer-reviewed publication is considered as proof. Peer review then becomes a critical activity of a journal. Much as editors would like, good peer reviewers aren’t easy to come by. Training and support for the peer reviewers should then be an important activity of academia. This should be a habit and perhaps best acquired by doing from the time of education and not necessarily limited to experts. Hopefully, the pointers above will help reviewers wanting to give back to their profession, some tips to improve and develop the skill.