Non-Peer Review Too

Greetings again. I hope you’re doing well.

As I write this post, we’re approaching Peer Review Week 2016. As noted in last week’s post, the theme this year is Recognition for Review.

In the research community, when we speak of review, we usually mean peer review. A peer is one’s equal—for example, a researcher in the same field. Having fellow experts in one’s field evaluate one’s work makes sense.

However, reviewers need not all be peers. Some examples:

• Once a journal asked me to review a paper outside my field. I was told that in addition to having the paper reviewed by peers, the editors wanted it reviewed by someone more representative of the journal’s readers.
• Some journals have statistical reviewers, who evaluate the statistics and study design of papers being considered. These reviewers have much more expertise in statistics than most authors do, and so they usually are not truly peers.
• I’m an author of a book largely for early-career researchers, including ones who are non-native users of English. Before preparing new editions of the book, I generally obtain feedback on the existing edition from such people.
• Recently a speaker at a talk on grant proposals advised listeners to “find a friend”. The speaker’s point was that a researcher who is relatively unfamiliar with the work being proposed can help see whether a draft of a proposal is clear and logical.
• When writing in a foreign language, having a draft reviewed by someone highly proficient in the language can be helpful. Although ideally the person has some knowledge of your field, the person might not be an actual peer.

This week, let’s recognize all reviewers—both peer and other.

Until the next post—

Barbara