Peer Review: A Resource and More

Greetings again. Here in Texas, the spring wildflowers are blooming. Today we took some international students on a drive to see wildflowers.

Most of this weekend, however, I’m working. The work includes revising a manuscript, based on comments from peer reviewers.

Peer review—in which experts in one’s field evaluate manuscripts, grant proposals, or other items—is important. This week, Julie Walker     at INASP mentioned a new resource on this topic.

This resource, “Peer Review: A Guide for Researchers”, was published by the Research Information Network, a policy unit in the United Kingdom. It includes an excellent flowchart showing the peer review process at journals.

I think that some common myths exist about peer review. Let me discuss 3 of them.

One myth is that the only purpose of peer review is to decide whether to accept an item. Actually, another important purpose is to obtain suggestions that will improve the item.

A second myth is that whether to publish a paper is just a vote of the peer reviewers. Actually, editors also consider other factors, such as the reasons given by the peer reviewers and the amount of space in the journal.

A third myth is that peer reviewers should focus only on weaknesses. Actually, reviewers also should mention strengths of the item they’re reviewing. This information helps editors, and it encourages authors.

I’m glad the peer reviewers said they liked my manuscript overall. Their encouragement helps motivate me to follow their suggestions.

Now, back to work!