Page 16 - Straive eBook: Redefining Your Peer Review Experience

16 Straive | Redefining Your Peer Review Experience

Revision

Where an editor requests major or minor
revision, the authors have some work to do in
addressing the comments of both the peer
reviewers and the editors and potentially fixing
items flagged by the initial technical check but
not requiring amendment before peer review.
However happy they may be that the article
was not rejected, fitting this work in around
other, often higher- priority activities, can be
a challenge. The question publishers must
consider is what they can or should do to make
revision an easier process. For example, at the
time of writing, many journals still require at
least three revision files: a point-by-point
response to the reviewer and editor comments,
a clean revised article file, and an article file
with track changes left in place.

Why in 2021 is it not possible for authors to supply a single revised file, with the peer review
system automatically comparing versions on the fly, much as Google Docs has done for
years? Alternatively, could peer review learn from production processes, converting the
submitted file into editable HTML that could be annotated by peer reviewer and editors, and
edited by the authors during revision?

Suggestions

• Process automated responses to pause
revision reminder emails while authors are
out of office.
• Incorporate public holidays into author
revision calendars based on country and
extend deadlines to take account of them.