Page 14 - Straive eBook: Redefining Your Peer Review Experience

14 Straive | Redefining Your Peer Review Experience

research soundness, at least within STM? SciScore is only one of a suite of tools aimed at
identifying methodological and statistical validity. If the reports generated by such tools were
made available to peer reviewers, they may both simplify the process of peer review and
increase its rigour.

Before moving on from review, we should touch on review reminders. Much like their invitation
counterparts, these are automated — a common pattern is for a reminder to be sent a
few days ahead of a review deadline, on the day, and then a few days later, before the late
review is referred to the JEO for manual chasing. A flaw here, in addition to not taking into
consideration automated responses to reminders, is that few systems allow for public
holidays in the reviewer’s country of residence. While some scholars may choose to review
during their time off, publishers should respect their right to a private life and avoid assuming
that they will do so.

Suggestions

• Consider where and how AI tools may be applicable within review.
• Assess the structure of reviewer report forms to facilitate good peer reviews.
• Provide peer reviewer guidance or direct reviewers to such guidance from
other sources.
• Process automated responses to pause reminder emails while reviewers are
out of office.
• Incorporate public holidays into reviewer calendars based on country and
extend deadlines to take account of them.

Editorial decision

Peer review systems are generally configured to alert editors when the necessary review
reports are received. Once logged in, the editor will assess the reports and decide how to
proceed. This can be straightforward — where there are two reviewers and the reports both
include a recommendation of minor revision, for example. In many cases, however, reviewer
reports conflict, with one reviewer recommending rejection or requesting significant additional
research while the other suggesting only minor revisions. In these situations, it is up to the
editor to make a call, or to invite another reviewer. As a rule, editorial decisions after the first
round of review might be reject (with or without the option to resubmit), major revision, or
minor revision. Articles accepted after a single round of review are rare, and may be a sign
that editorial standards are slipping. The JEO offers a backstop for editors at this point:
working as they do across multiple titles, experienced members of the JEO may well have
been involved with the peer review process for more articles than any one editor. While
they will not comment on the scholarly value of an article, they can flag bad or rude peer
review reports, suggest ways to handle conflicting reports, help with finding third reviewers,
and more.