Peer review: transparency, recognition, and listening to our community
This year’s peer review week – a global event that celebrates the crucial role of peer review in maintaining scientific quality – has the theme ‘Transparency’. We take a look at why peer review is important, what transparency in peer review means to us, and what we are doing to recognise our reviewers for their efforts.
Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing, and central to what we do as a society publisher. It is the process by which a manuscript is examined by experts in the same field, known as peers, before being accepted or rejected for publication.
Nicola Nugent is Journals Operations Manager, Editorial, at the Royal Society of Chemistry and oversees peer review systems, processes and procedures.
"The ultimate purpose of peer review is to uphold the integrity of the scientific record," she says. "It’s a means of assessing the validity of research, and an important part of the quality control process of journals."
Collaborative effort
It’s not just a means of certification though. By undergoing peer review, the publication becomes a collaborative effort.
"It can improve the quality of submitted articles", explains Nicola, "because it allows authors to gain valuable feedback from their peers, which they can then go back and apply to their work."
Submitted manuscripts are handled by an editor – for our journals this can be either a professional in-house editor or an academic associate editor – who initially assesses whether the manuscript is a good fit for the journal. Some submissions will be rejected at that stage, but if a manuscript passes that initial assessment, the editor will send it to reviewers.
Our editors can choose reviewers from our very large database that includes researchers from all over the world and all areas of chemistry. Most are from academia, but some are industry researchers.
"Typically an editor will need at least two reviews to make a decision" says Nicola. "If they don’t have enough information to make a decision based on the first two reviews, they may need to invite further reviewers."
"It’s crucial to choose the right person to review", she says. "We require all reviewers to have a PhD or equivalent, in an area related to the paper in question. They also need to be in current active research, and have a track-record of publishing in high-quality peer-reviewed journals.
"Our editors also take a reviewer’s past performance into account. It’s important that they can provide impartial and thorough comments, in the required timeframe, and that they are willing and available to review."
Treating people fairly
The theme of this year’s peer review week is 'transparency' – a term that can mean different things to different people.
"To us it means being open and clear about what our processes are", says Nicola. "We maintain an open dialogue with our authors and we’re prepared to listen if they feel a decision was incorrect.
"We have a very open and transparent appeal process, and a robust process for dealing with errors or potential misconduct.
"It’s about treating our authors, reviewers and readers fairly.
"We also use CrossMark, a widget that is added to the manuscript’s landing page and the PDF. Readers can click on it to find out whether the manuscript has been updated in any way, such as with corrections or comments. We also use the CrossMark widget to display information about who funded the research, as well as author identifiers (ORCID and ResearcherID) and copyright and licensing statements.
"We also continually seek to improve the transparency of our processes. For example, we are currently in the process of rolling out an initiative to all our journals where we will contact reviewers once a decision has been made on a manuscript they reviewed. They also get to see the other reviewers’ reports. That keeps things transparent and is a great feedback loop."
Recognising our reviewers
Journals could not operate – and research would not get published – without a vast cohort of dedicated volunteer reviewers to help.
"Reviewers volunteer their time to us, and we want to recognise them and say thank you," says Jane Hordern, our Customer Services Manager for Journals.
In a recent survey of our reviewers, we found that most see the job as part of their role as an academic and weren’t looking for anything more, but recognition is always welcome.
Jane is leading projects to provide reviewers with more recognition for what they do.
"This year we launched certificates for our outstanding reviewers," she says. "Each journal names their top ten reviewers, based on number of reviews completed, their usefulness and quality, and speed of response."
The names of the outstanding reviewers can be found on the blog pages and in annual editorials published in the individual journals.
Track and verify your reviews
On 11 September we announced a new partnership with Publons, a leading online platform that allows reviewers to track, verify, and showcase their peer review contributions across all participating journals. Ten of our biggest journals will be offering reviewers the option to track their work in this way, as part of a 12-month trial.
"Once reviewers have opted in to the service their record is updated automatically and they can view and download it any time. They can use the service when applying for promotions or grants, as evidence of their role as a reviewer", says Jane.
The partnership represents a further move towards greater transparency, as it’s a way for reviewers to declare their involvement in the process.
Meet the reviewers
We interviewed three of our Outstanding Reviewers, on their experiences and thoughts about peer review.
Peer review is a great way of keeping up to date with new research.
What was your first reviewing experience like?
The first journal I reviewed for was Analyst, I think the first paper I reviewed was on a new substrate for Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS). I remember taking a very long time over the first reviews I had to do. I think my comments are a lot briefer these days but with the same level of diligence!
What do you get out of doing peer review?
I see it is a service to the scientific community and to play my part in maintaining scientific quality and rigour within publishing. I want to get my papers peer reviewed, which is a great way to get detailed feedback on my research, and eventually have them shared with the wider community through publication. I view being a reviewer as part of my professional service back to other researchers.
Another benefit is that, being so busy, we don’t have enough time to read the literature as much as we would like, so peer review is also a great way of keeping up to date with new research.
I like the idea of making something better.
What do you get out of doing peer review?
I believe in the process – this may not be the best system, but it is the best one we have come up with. It is a way of making science progress by being able to have some trust in published literature, such that we can build on previous work robustly.
On a personal level, I like the idea of making something better. Often I learn something new both in terms of knowledge and in terms of the process and how to write a paper, which I try to then implement in my own research.
Evolving process
Peer review is a constantly evolving process and the way we manage it is only one of several options. Best practice is a subject of ongoing discussion in the academic community and it is difficult to label a particular process as ‘better’.
We have traditionally operated single-blind peer review, where the identity of authors is known to reviewers, but not the other way round. We have recently amended this policy however, so that reviewers may disclose their identity if they wish, by signing their name to the report.
"It’s not mandated", says Nicola, "but we’ve provided people with the option as some felt strongly that they wanted it."
Listening to the community
This emphasis on listening to what authors and reviewers want is key at the Royal Society of Chemistry. Peer review is not an exact science – there are many different methods and the wider community is not unanimous on which method works the best.
Open peer review, where reviewers are identified and their reports are published alongside the paper, lies towards one end of the spectrum of openness, and in September 2014 we announced our collaboration with the Royal Society on their journal Royal Society Open Science, which operates optional open peer review. Readers can also offer post-publication comments and authors can respond to them, so peer review continues even after the paper is published.
Then there is double-blind peer review – common in social sciences research – where both authors and reviewers are anonymous. We are trialling this type of peer review on our journal Chemical Communications, to see whether the community finds it useful.
"We listened to our community," says May Copsey, Executive Editor of Chemical Communications. "And we found that there is a perception by authors in certain regions that they could be discriminated against in peer review on the basis of their institution. This optional trial will allow authors to conceal their identity if they wish. Our checklist helps authors to do this effectively.
"We are doing this to assess demand from the community, and hopefully to gather evidence as to whether it does reduce bias and improve quality. After 12 months we will make a decision on whether to continue.
No model for peer review is perfect, which is why we are trying different things, with an emphasis on transparency, fairness and quality.
Press office
- Tel:
- +44 (0) 20 7440 3351
- Email:
- Send us an email