Experienced journal reviewers' perceptions of and engagement with the task of reviewing: an Australian perspective

Abstract

As part of a mixed-methods doctoral project, this study drew on an interview, bracketed by two surveys, with experienced Australian reviewers. It explored questions about the contributions of peer review, the need and possibility to improve it and the driving factors for reviewers to contribute voluntarily. The respondents emphasised the essential status of peer review, especially for ensuring quality in research and publication. They also acknowledged its contributions of gatekeeping, establishing credibility and authority, building capacity, improving quality and facilitating disciplinary dialogue. They indicated there had been no significant change to peer review, and nearly half of them indicated no change was needed. A strong sense of faith and a high level of tolerance of the deficiencies in peer review were evident, which appeared to be related to the awareness that for most problems there was no obvious solution and to an appreciation of the voluntary nature of the task. This faith and tolerance, along with the complex nature of peer review, partially explained why it was so difficult to make any change to it. There is one area where the respondents were keen to see improvement -they called for their contribution as reviewers to be recognised in a more explicit manner, especially by employing institutions. The study calls into question how long a voluntary system can endure.

What motivates people to review articles? The case of the human‐computer interaction community

“…Maintaining and establishing reputation was a popular reviewing motivation and emerged as a factor that included the desire for Influencing my field and gaining experience and Preparing for higher roles in reviewing hierarchy. Online peer review support systems facilitate keeping track of reviewers' activities over time, which can be used to recognize reviewers' contributions, a prevalent concern of reviewers (Lu, ). Moreover, recognition and presentation of contributions of the best reviewers (based on both quality and quantity) in their online public profiles (with appropriate consent mechanisms in place) could help accumulation of reputation on top of the organic process that relies on social networks of researchers.…”

Editor Fatigue: Can Political Science Journals Increase Review Invitation-Acceptance Rates?

“…The "invisible" character of manuscript reviewing also has been identified by scholars as a problem (Lu 2013), although findings in this area are mixed (Zaharie and Seeber 2018). Some scholars have proposed systems for publicly recognizing reviewer contributions (Cantor and Gero 2015;Djupe 2015;Ling 2011;Petchey et al 2014), whereas others have noted the importance of acknowledgment by the journal (Tite and Schroter 2006).…”