News

Intellect is celebrating Peer Review Week 2022! 

 

Peer Review Week is taking place from 19-23 September 2022, and this year’s theme is ‘Research Integrity: Creating and supporting trust in research’.

 

Per their website:

 

‘Peer Review Week is a community-led yearly global virtual event celebrating the essential role that peer review plays in maintaining research quality. The event brings together individuals, institutions, and organizations committed to sharing the central message that quality peer review in whatever shape or form it may take is critical to scholarly communication’.

 

For more information and to get involved click here.

 

To celebrate we have asked a range of our journal editors to respond to questions regarding the peer review process and their experiences with it. We hope to illuminate and demystify the peer review process, providing greater transparency and a window into how it functions in practice within the context of Intellect’s journals.

 

Do you enjoy providing peer review feedback?

 

‘I really do – it's the perfect opportunity to discuss, rethink and debate. Peer reviewers for the journal have engaged with the submissions in very detailed ways, they have suggested further reading to the author, pointed to other sources and provided constructive editing suggestions missed. All of this leads into the journal becoming a high quality publication with interesting and well researched material’.

Deirdre O'Neill, Principal Editor, Journal of Class & Culture

 

‘Peer-review comments can be especially helpful to authors who need an objective perspective on their work, so I'm always happy to offer a balanced and (hopefully) helpful point of view on an article submission’.

Benjamin Wright, Principal Editor, The Soundtrack

 

‘Yes, I do, though I have to admit it can be stressful when the “news” is likely to disappoint the author – either a rejection or a requirement for a substantial rewrite. However, as part of a professional peer learning environment, the process is hugely valuable and most authors are very positive and welcoming toward critical reviews’.

Russ Bestley, Editor, Punk & Post Punk

 

‘Providing peer review feedback is a professional duty that requires a high sense of responsibility and involves tact and respect for the authors’ work. The communication with authors should be constructive and should open a collegial dialogue in order to establish trust and foster collaboration in the rewrite of a submission’.

Flavia Laviosa, Principal Editor, Journal of Italian Cinema & Media Studies

 

'The word ‘enjoy’ is an anomaly. There is a sense of professional duty in providing peer review feedback. It’s a learning process for both the reviewers and the author'.

Ola Ogunyemi, Founder/Principal Editor, Journal of Global Diaspora & Media

 

What is most challenging about the peer review process?

 

‘Matching up the peer reviewer with the topic of the article –It’s important for the person who wrote the article to know that the person reviewing their article is an expert in their shared field.  I’ve had people agree to do a peer review and then get back to me saying they really loved the article but didn’t feel qualified to comment on it because it’s not their area’.

Deirdre O'Neill, JCLC

 

‘The most challenging aspect of peer review for me is ensuring that I've provided clear and cogent feedback that will hopefully lead to a better article’.

Benjamin Wright, TS

 

‘Finding peer reviewers… we make use of the editorial team to lead individual peer review processes, with the editorial board being called upon to support. However, we do deal with a significant number of submissions on a rolling basis and it can be tricky to find reviewers with suitable expertise, interest and, importantly, time to do the work. English language is probably the other big issue. Our journal covers a diverse and international range of themes and researchers, with many submissions from authors who use English as a second language. It is not a requirement for our peer reviewers to deal with the details and intricacies of English grammar and syntax, but it is something that someone has to engage with somewhere along the line’.

Russ Bestley, PUNK

 

‘The most delicate aspect of the peer review process is to guide peer reviewers in writing their evaluations so that they will convey opinions, comments and recommendations clearly and respectfully. Even when an article is rejected, the review should communicate to the author how it can be improved and submitted to other journals’.

Flavia Laviosa, JICMS

 

'As an editor, the most challenging is getting reviewers to accept and submit their reviews on time. As a reviewer, its ensuring fairness in assessing the quality of content and methods to enable you give constructive feedback'.

Ola Ogunyemi, JGDM

 

What is most rewarding about the peer review process?

 

‘When it happens- the engagement between the peer reviewer and the author over a series of exchanges -and receiving emails from authors saying how much the peer review helped them to clarify their ideas and improve the article and could I pass on their thanks to the peer reviewers. Also knowing there are such dedicated academics out there willing to take time out of what is always a busy schedule to engage critically with the work of others and to support the smooth running of the journal’.

Deirdre O’Neill, JCLC

 

‘The most rewarding aspect of peer review is seeing an article through the entire process from review to publication’.

Benjamin Wright, TS

 

‘Receiving positive responses from authors who appreciate the care, diligence, time and effort that has gone into the process. For many post-doctoral and professional researchers, peer review to this degree on work in progress is often difficult to access, and in most cases the comments and feedback from our peer reviewers is welcomed and appreciated’.

Russ Bestley, PUNK

 

‘It is the authors’ appreciation for attention to their work, support and guidance on how to improve it and personalized communication with the Editor throughout the review/rewrite process’.

Flavia Laviosa, JICMS

 

'Reading a well written and composed manuscript and seeing it in print'.

Ola Ogunyemi, JGDM

 

Can you explain your peer review process, and how it may differ from that of others?

 

‘I am not sure that it is any different from others – but the process is straightforward – When I receive an article for the journal, I read it and decide if it is suitable for the journal. If it is, I then match it up with two academics who are working in the same broad area. The decision was made from the start that only constructive and useful engagement would be passed on to authors. Negative and dismissive reviews will not be shared’.

Deirdre O’Neill, JCLC

 

‘My process is probably very similar to others in my field: I tend to look for pockets of really innovative and provocative insights into the subject matter -- and worry less about the author's literature review. In other words, I'm less concerned that they've spent more than half the article citing the "correct" sources, and more interested in seeing how they've built an argument around their subject’.

Benjamin Wright, TS

 

‘As Lead Editor, I tend to receive first submissions, which I read to evaluate initial suitability for our journal and to identify potential lead reviewers. I may then pass on the draft submission to one of my co-editors in order for them to lead on the process and to liaise with potential second/third peer reviewers. I also pass on details of the submitting author, sometimes copying both into a group email as an introduction and to reassure the submitting author that the process is underway, with a rough schedule for feedback. We normally run with at least two peer reviews, though at times it may run up to three or even four independent reviews in the case of a specialist topic or an article that spans interdisciplinary fields of study. I oversee feedback to the author – we anonymise most peer reviews, though in some cases the reviewer is happy to be named and might offer to provide further help and support as the article is developed toward final draft submission. Some of our reviewers also use the Track Changes feature in Word to mark up comments, make changes and suggest edits etc. We also work with the Intellect Style Guide to try to pre-empt any problems that would otherwise arise at Copy Edit’.

Russ Bestley, PUNK

 

‘Each submission is reviewed by two readers. Peer reviewers are assigned articles for reviews in the areas of their expertise. They are given 4 weeks to deliver their review and are asked to follow these guidelines: 

 

Your anonymous review is critical to the quality of the Journal. Please, offer detailed and extensive comments, provide constructive feedback to authors, praise strengths, address faults in their article and give specific suggestions for improvements. Even if the article is rejected, your comments may result in improved resubmissions to this journal or other journals at a later date. Please, be courteous, collegial and conscientious’.

Flavia Laviosa, JICMS

 

'The peer review process is similar in most cases. We have a database of reviewers, and we try to match their research interests with the paper they are asked to review'.

Ola Ogumyemi, JGDM

 

What are the benefits of providing peer reviewing for the reviewer?

 

‘Specifically in my experience the reviewers enjoy the experience of engaging with new work related to their own area of research. More generally there has been a determined effort to support the work of the journal’.

Deirdre O’Neill, JCLC

 

‘The key benefit is providing the author with a point of view that they may have overlooked’.

Benjamin Wright, TS

 

‘It helps the reviewer to stay abreast of new and original research in a field related to their own expertise. At the peer review stage, the research is obviously still unpublished, providing the reviewer potential new and original ways of thinking about their field of study at the cutting edge of the discipline. It can also lead to a healthy dialogue and debate between article author and reviewer, whether anonymous or otherwise’.

Russ Bestley, PUNK

 

‘Having the opportunity to read unpublished articles with novel and original perspectives authored by promising young scholars as well as more senior and reputable authors’.

Flavia Laviosa, JICMS

 

'They enhance their scholarship and help them to present their ideas convincingly'.

Ola Ogunyemi, JGDM

  

What are the benefits of having your academic work reviewed?

 

‘The opportunity to clarify ideas and arguments and open up a discussion with other academics working in your field –to identify mistakes, to consider issues you might not have considered previously or include issues you might have omitted, all of which contribute to improving the article’.

Deirdre O’Neill, JCLC

 

‘Same as the previous answer’.

Benjamin Wright, TS

 

‘As above, the teaching and learning process while studying, from school through to PhD, allows for critical support and formative feedback as a key part of the process. However, such expert opinion and considered feedback can be harder to access once the researcher/author is working outside of a course of study. Formative, rather than just summative feedback (in the form of book reviews etc), is a key part of the research process and journal (or book chapter) submissions provide a potentially rich and valuable opportunity to test ideas as they are being developed’.

Russ Bestley, PUNK

 

‘To be evaluated in a fair and professional way by competent and expert colleagues’.

Flavia Laviosa, JICMS

 

'To test your ideas and to get constructive feedback'.

Ola Ogunyemi, JGDM 

 

How do you reconcile differing feedback from multiple reviewers?

 

‘If we have two reviewers who both say the article should be published but have different areas of disagreement, we will send the article to a third reviewer – all reviews will be sent to the author who can decide with the principal editor which suggestions should be accepted. If we have two outright rejections, we suggest to the author they rewrite the article and submit at another time’. 

Deirdre O’Neill, JCLC

 

‘I tend not to concern myself with other readers' points of view. I trust the principal editor will handle those disagreements and provide the author with a clear way forward’.

Benjamin Wright, TS

 

‘We operate with one lead reviewer who manages the process – either myself as Lead Editor or one of the experienced Co-Editors. I will discuss the range of feedback with the lead reviewer and work with them to draw comments together into a constructive and – importantly – coherent summary of feedback with clear actions as to how the author might address any issues. If there is a significant discrepancy between reviews we will request a third (or fourth) peer review and the editorial team will all read and discuss a way forward. The key point is to avoid giving confusing or variable feedback without clear guidance to the author’.

Russ Bestley, PUNK

 

‘I consult a third reviewer for arbitration. Then I provide the author a summary of the main points of the three reviews which are always valid and rich in comments and recommendations for improvements’.

Flavia Laviosa, JICMS

 

'The editor will need to take an executive decision which may include sending it to a third reviewer'.

Ola Ogunyemi, JGDM

 

Do you prefer anonymous or open review?

 

‘As I always approach the reviewers personally, all reviews sent to the editor are open – reviews sent to the author are anonymous’. 

Deirdre O’Neill, JCLC

 

‘I do prefer anonymous feedback, especially being in a sub-field of media studies (sound), we tend to know most scholars working in the field (or they know of us). It may jeopardize friendships or professional relationships if comments are misconstrued or taken negatively’.

Benjamin Wright, TS

 

‘I prefer open review if possible. We operate within a small(ish) field of study and many senior researchers are well known to one another. Constructive and honest dialogue between genuine peers can be very productive and can avoid misinterpretations’.

Russ Bestley, PUNK

 

‘Only anonymous to protect the identities of the parties involved and prevent professional/personal tension among scholars’.

Flavia Laviosa, JICMS

 

'Either is fine with me. What is important is fairness in assessing the quality of content and methods'.

Ola Ogunyemi, JGDM

 

What would you say to authors unfamiliar with peer review or daunted by the process?

 

‘This is not something I have encountered’.

Deirdre O’Neill, JCLC

 

‘I'd say this is part of the process of getting your work out there in the world. And before it can be read by other scholars in your field, it's important to have it vetted to ensure that you haven't made a glaring error. Peer review can save an author from embarrassment. It's no different than having a friend read your paper and offer feedback on its structure and content. Except in our case, your friend is a fellow researcher in the same field’.

Benjamin Wright, TS

 

‘We try to manage a fair, rigorous and, most importantly, transparent and supportive peer review process.  None of us are here to “destroy” someone’s work or undermine their confidence. As above, we see the process as formative, rather than summative, and we pride ourselves on our professional and sympathetic approach’.

Russ Bestley, PUNK

 

‘To engage in an open dialogue with the Editor of the journal so that they can fully appreciate the effort, commitment and support behind any evaluation. Not to be afraid of the process, they can only learn from it’.

Flavia Laviosa, JICMS

 

'They need to accept that 'rejection' comes with the trade. They should take onboard the constructive criticism and use it to enhance their work'. 

Ola Ogunyemi, JGDM 

 

What do you think might be in store for the future of peer review, or how would you like to see it change?

 

‘There is always the worry that peer reviewers will go with the accepted orthodoxy in relation to their field and reject work that steps outside the boundaries of such orthodoxies. While I think the double-blind review is the preferable option, I think it is important to be aware of the dangers caused by ideological bias and institutional gatekeeping. I also think openness and transparency are important and it should be possible for authors and peer reviewers to discuss the article under review in the light of the comments made. This is something we encourage and have facilitated the process then becomes one of a discussion or critical engagement between equals rather than a process where one academic sits in judgement on the work of another’.

Deirdre O’Neill, JCLC

 

‘Compensation is something that is sorely lacking in academic publishing - so many scholars and researchers are stretched thin on teaching and research loads that their community service (of which peer review is a part) often gets pushed to the very bottom of their to-do list. To incentivize the process by compensating reviewers for their work may improve the situation. Often, editors have difficulty finding peer reviewers and have to track down reader reports from scholars who are overworked and often can't find the time to volunteer their expertise’.

Benjamin Wright, TS

 

‘I would like to see more support for English language at the copy edit stage and/or through an additional process that works alongside peer review’.

Russ Bestley, PUNK

 

‘I would not change it, I would instead have PhD students familiarized with the review process early in their studies by having their research papers reviewed by their professors, so that they can appreciate the work behind a scholarly review and accept comments and revisions for their constructive and formative value’.

Flavia Laviosa, JICMS

 

'I think peer reviewers should be paid for their effort and time. It should also count towards their career progression'.

Ola Ogunyemi, JGDM