Tags

peer review

International Mother Language Day: Rethinking Peer Review

Every year on February 21, researchers across the world observe International Mother Language Day, an initiative led by UNESCO to promote linguistic and cultural diversity. While the day often sparks conversations about education, identity, and heritage, it also raises a critical question for academia: What does peer review look like in a multilingual world? As […]

INFOGRAPHIC : Navigating Manuscript Revision After Peer Review: A Quick Guide

  Getting revision requests after peer review is a typical part of academic publishing process. Almost every paper that gets accepted goes through this. At first, it might feel a bit daunting, but here’s the silver lining: reviewers and editors have taken a good look at your research and, even though they see room for improvement, they’re interested in publishing it. During this process, reviewers point out areas that might be unclear, need more evidence, or where your argument could be stronger. This is your chance to take their expert advice and make your manuscript even better. How you respond is key. Showing that you’ve seriously considered their feedback and used it to enhance your work, and when needed, politely explaining why you didn’t make a suggested change, can make all the difference in getting your paper published. This quick guide is here to help you get organized, plan your revision process and timeline, and navigate it effectively, bringing you one step closer to publication.

Publishing Trends to Watch in 2026: AI, Open Science, and Peer Review Reform

As 2025 wraps up, many of us in scholarly publishing are taking stock of the year, what worked, what didn’t, and what continues to challenge our workflows. From training editors to responding to new integrity concerns, I’ve seen a pattern of gradual adjustments rather than dramatic change. Based on these experiences, three areas will continue […]

Yesterday, today, tomorrow- peer review from the editor’s perspective

Peer review has come a long way—from its traditional roots to today’s AI-driven workflows, and now toward an uncertain future. As medicine and research evolve, how can reviewers balance human expertise with the promise and pitfalls of AI?