Hayden Von Coombs, Ph.D.
Editor-in-Chief, Utah Journal of Communication
Assistant Professor of Communication, Southern Utah University
Braden Hale Bagley, Ph.D.
Content Director, Utah Journal of Communication
Assistant Professor of Communication, Southern Utah University
Suggested Citation:
Coombs, H. V., & Bagley, B. (2023). Tips for a streamlined peer review process. Utah Journal of Communication, 0(2), 42-44. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10064623
Abstract
Quality peer reviewing is not only crucial for publications, but it is vital for the career development of academics. Without a standardized review process, academic publications can struggle to organize peer review reports in a way that provides authors with specific and effective feedback. This paper offers publications and referees a structured process that is mutually beneficial for publications and authors alike. The suggestions and methods discussed in this paper were tailored explicitly for the Utah Journal of Communication, an open-access journal that employs a double-blind peer review process, but were also presented in a way generally applicable to all journals with standard peer review practices.
Keywords: peer review, referee, academic journal, scientific journal
The Peer Review Process
The peer-review process, also known as “refereeing,” is the standard practice for academic journals. It allows publications and the academic community to identify potential inaccuracies that may flaw the outcome or the presentation of scientific research (Mayden, 2013). A thorough peer review can provide an accurate assessment of the validity, quality, and originality of an article under review while simultaneously maintaining the integrity of a publication (Berk et al., 2017). The peer review process has become the foundation of the scholarly publication system because it effectively subjects an author’s work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field, thus encouraging authors to strive to produce high-quality research that will advance the field (Kelly et al., 2014). Figure 1 illustrates how the peer review process is often conducted.
Figure 1
The peer review process is a critical component of the academic publishing process. It serves several essential functions, including:
- Quality Control: Peer review helps to ensure that the research published in academic journals is of high quality and meets established standards for scientific or scholarly research.
- Objectivity: By having multiple independent experts evaluate a piece of research, peer review helps to ensure that the findings are objective and unbiased.
- Feedback: Peer reviewers provide feedback to the authors on the strengths and weaknesses of their work, which can help to improve the quality of the research.
- Credibility: Peer-reviewed publications are generally considered more credible and trustworthy than non-peer-reviewed sources, as they have undergone a rigorous evaluation process.
- Filtering: Peer review helps to filter out lower-quality research, saving researchers time and effort when searching for relevant literature on a topic.
The peer review process is essential for maintaining the integrity and reliability of academic research and ensuring that the published work is of high quality and makes a valuable contribution to the field.
Double-Blind Review
The double-blind peer review process is used to evaluate academic or scientific publications in which the identities of the reviewers and the authors are kept anonymous. This method is intended to prevent bias and ensure that the evaluation is based solely on the content of the publication. In a double-blind review, the author’s name and other identifying information are removed from the manuscript before it is sent to the reviewers. The reviewers’ names are also kept confidential from the authors, to allow for a more objective and fair assessment of the work.
Steps to a Successful Peer Review
Peer reviewing an academic article involves a critical evaluation of the research and its methods, as well as providing feedback to the author. Here are some steps to follow when peer reviewing an article:
- Read the article carefully: Read the article thoroughly and understand the main argument and findings presented. Notify the editor immediately if there is a conflict of interest.
- Examine the research question(s): Be sure to evaluate the importance of the research questions as stated in the manuscript. Objectives and justification should be aligned with the research questions. The term “alignment” refers to the logical and congruent progression between each element of the academic and scientific research process.
- Evaluate the methodology: Assess whether the research methods used are appropriate for the study and whether the data is analyzed correctly.
- Assess the originality: Verify that the content of the article is original and that the author has properly cited any sources used. Evaluate how the research contributes to the field.
- Identify strengths and weaknesses: Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article, highlighting any errors or inconsistencies in the research.
- Provide constructive feedback: Provide specific and actionable feedback to the author on how to improve the article.
- Maintain anonymity: Remember to maintain the anonymity of both the authors and the reviewers during the process.
- Make a final recommendation: State whether you recommend if the manuscript should be accepted, accepted with revisions (also known as “R&R,” or revise and resubmit), or outright rejected. Remember that the final decision will be that of the editor-in-chief or editorial board.
It’s important to keep in mind that the peer review process is not about rejecting papers, but instead about helping authors improve their papers. Thus, even if the manuscript is not ready for publication, it’s important to give the authors detailed feedback and guidance on how to improve their work.
Conclusion
The peer review process is fundamental in assisting editors in selecting credible, high-quality research papers to publish in scientific journals and ensuring the correction of any errors or issues present in submitted papers (Kelly et al., 2014). While this article attempts to provide a general framework for refereeing original research manuscripts, no universally accepted means of peer review exists. However, new and experienced referees alike can take comfort in the notion that, like writing scientific articles, refereeing is an ongoing process that rewards you with knowledge and experience (Lippi, 2018). Aside from ensuring that only quality research papers are released into the scientific community, refereeing can also benefit your career as a researcher as you develop expertise in your respective field, enhance your critical thinking skills, network with publishers and fellow researchers, demonstrate credibility to your peers, contribute to the academic and scientific communities, and advance your career.
References
Berk, J. B., Harvey, C. R., & Hirshleifer, D. (2017). How to write an effective referee report and improve the scientific review process. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(1), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.1.231
Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adeli, K. (2014). Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. EJIFCC, 25(3), 227–243.
Lippi, G. (2018). How do I peer-review A scientific article?—a personal perspective. Annals of Translational Medicine, 6(3), 68–68. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2017.12.15
Mayden, K. D. (2012). Peer review: publication’s gold standard. Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology, 3(2), 117.