Peer reviewer: what commitment is that?

Abstract

Journals are the medium of excellence for intellectually disseminating academic production and scientifi c advancements, and today they may be considered the main providers/judges of scientifi c merit for most fi elds of knowledge. In this process, reviewing papers and selecting those that fulfi ll the criteria of ethical integrity, scientifi c quality, and relevance for professional practice are a responsibility shared by journal publishers and their reviewers. Starting in the late 1990s, the Brazilian academic-scientifi c community has benefi tted from a signifi cant expansion in the access to and dissemination of scientifi c information, a fact related mostly to the increased number of titles available in electronic format (1). Such growth came along with a host of other challenges, among which we have the makeup of the team of reviewers for such journals. Being an ad hoc reviewer/editor is a role that requires people to dedicate their time and knowledge, as well as be committed and responsible towards the advancement of science. However, this activity is undervalued at times, given its anonymity and somewhat unclear benefi ts. Another relevant issue is that journals need to have expert reviewers capable of adding quality to the publications, both in terms of the practical contributions from their assessment of the merit of papers submitted and their infl uence on journal rating (Qualis) by the Coordination of Support for Higher Education Personnel (Coordenação de Apoio ao Pessoal de Nível Superior-CAPES). As a result, there emerge specifi c requirements for putting together a team of reviewers, which must be staff ed by top researchers specializing either in the topic addressed or the literature and methods evaluated. By mastering the knowledge and practice in their specialties, reviewers can off er authors precious advice (2). In the context of scientifi c journals, the offi cial academic paper analysis process conducted by reviewers is peer review, in which the identity of reviewers and authors is kept confi dential. In this process, the peers collaborate with the publisher's eff orts to identify studies that are scientifi cally rigorous and ethical, as well as relevant for the practice and advancement of knowledge. Journal publishers must clearly let reviewers know what their roles and duties are, and especially about the confi dential nature of the document submitted for evaluation (3) , to guarantee the quality of the review by making sure the peers are impartial, objective, and meet deadlines. From this standpoint, it is suitable to expect publishers to regularly monitor the performance of their reviewers and stop requesting reviews from those who repeatedly deliver work that lacks quality and/or is not constructive, or miss deadlines (3,4). Meeting review completion deadlines is an important aspect of the peer-review process. When reviewers accept an invitation and fail to fi nish their work on time, the review process becomes longer and the authors' become more anxious as they wait for a reply on thei...

Editorial: Why should we care about preparing referee reports?

“…

It is undeniable that the whole academic publication universe depends on the fundamental, but not necessarily enough recognized and rewarded, reviewers' role. The fact is that without the reviewers, even if we consider the new open science practices, there is no way to guarantee the quality of the published research in journals worldwide (Bedeian, 2003;Gerhardt, Dal Pai, Gouveia & Azzolin, 2014).Although authors have praised the role of anonymous reviewers in academic life (Hamermesh, 1992(Hamermesh, , 1994McAfee, 2010;Taylor, 2009), there seem to be very few defined and consensual reasons for scholars to prepare referee reports promptly (Tosi, 2009). In fact, according to some studies, delays and missed deadlines are often a common feature of academic publishing today (Ellison

…”

“…It is undeniable that the whole academic publication universe depends on the fundamental, but not necessarily enough recognized and rewarded, reviewers' role. The fact is that without the reviewers, even if we consider the new open science practices, there is no way to guarantee the quality of the published research in journals worldwide (Bedeian, 2003;Gerhardt, Dal Pai, Gouveia & Azzolin, 2014).…”

“…One problem derived from such thinking is that if many people proceed in this way, it may be difficult for the academic community to achieve collective goals, such as advancing knowledge in the scientific community. After all, the prosperity of the scientific community is based on referee reports (Treviño, 2008;Gerhardt et al, 2014).…”

“…The reviewer's dilemma How does the process of preparing a report work? In general, preparing a referee report is an anonymous [1] task, for referees are not known for the service they perform (Gerhardt et al, 2014). More than that, the preparation of such reports is unpaid and can be time-consuming for those involved in such a task (Chetty, Saez, and S andor, 2014;Gerhardt et al, 2014).…”

“…In general, preparing a referee report is an anonymous [1] task, for referees are not known for the service they perform (Gerhardt et al, 2014). More than that, the preparation of such reports is unpaid and can be time-consuming for those involved in such a task (Chetty, Saez, and S andor, 2014;Gerhardt et al, 2014). Thus, for example, when scholars must decide how to divide their time into various academic tasks such as class preparation, research activities or committee participation, among others, it makes sense to imagine that the preparation of referee reports may not be one of their priorities (Berk, Harvey & Hirshleifer, 2017;Hamermesh, 1992Hamermesh, , 1994Tosi, 2009).…”