Page 15 - Straive eBook: Redefining Your Peer Review Experience

Straive | Redefining Your Peer Review Experience 15

There are questions for publishers to consider here, including how to ensure that multiple
editors on a single title have the same thresholds for decision making, how to ensure that
editors are fair to authors, and whether editors should annotate or edit reviewer reports. The
first issue, standardising decision making, was one of the reasons why many publishers
introduced multiple editor levels. In a mirror of the editorial screening step, when a handling
editor on a multi-tier journal makes a decision, the article may be referred to a senior editor for
a sense-check. This helps to ensure that all articles within the senior editor’s remit will be held
to a consistent standard, as well as providing the handling editor with an escalation route for
articles with conflicting peer review reports. Three-tier journals may also pass the senior
editor’s decision to the editor-in- chief, though this final check is usually confined to accept
decisions to maintain a manageable workload.

The second question, about whether editors
are overly demanding, is related to decision
making. Take a scenario where an article reports
on methodologically sound, novel research, but
one reviewer requests that additional experiments
be undertaken. The editor could agree with the
reviewer, potentially costing the authors many
months of work, or they could instead ask the
authors to acknowledge that the requested work
could be undertaken as part of a future research
project (we recommend the latter). What the
editor should be aware of, however, is fairly
applying the same standards in equivalent
situations.

Finally, when considering whether editors should annotate or edit reviewer reports, we would
argue that where the reports are unclear, or in any way derogatory, the editor should indeed
edit the report. They should also consider flagging reviewers who have produced rude or
unhelpful reports so that they may be offered training in best practice peer review.

Some publishers have implemented a rating system that asks editors to rate the quality of the
peer review report. This can be helpful as part of a suite of metrics about peer reviewers,
including the likelihood of accepting an invitation to review and the timeliness of their reports.

Suggestions

• Create guidelines to help ensure consistency of decision making across an
editorial board.
• Where there are multiple editors on a journal, implement a ‘discussion’ feature in the
peer review system that allows handling editors to consult their colleagues.
• Where decisions must be signed off by senior editors, consider mechanisms to reduce
this workload (e.g., approving handling editors to make decisions without sign-off after
a period of time or only requiring sign-off of accept/reject decisions).
• Configure a workflow that sends acceptance decisions after a single round of review to
the publisher for audit.