{"id":6147,"date":"2014-06-16T07:04:37","date_gmt":"2014-06-16T07:04:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/experts\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress\/"},"modified":"2025-09-19T15:11:19","modified_gmt":"2025-09-19T09:41:19","slug":"the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress","status":"publish","type":"experts","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress","title":{"rendered":"The peer review process: challenges and progress"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Dr. Irene Hames is an independent research-publication and peer-review specialist with over 30 years’ experience in scholarly publishing. She served as specialist advisor to the UK Parliamentary House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, and helped produce the report\u00a0Peer Review in Scientific Publications<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0<\/em>Dr. Hames is also author of the book\u00a0Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals<\/em>, published by Wiley-Blackwell in association with ALPSP (the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers). She has several papers published on peer review of which the more recent are,\u00a0The changing face of peer review\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century.<\/em> (See her extended biographical summary in\u00a0part one<\/a>\u00a0of the interview series.)<\/p>\n

In the\u00a0first part\u00a0of our interview series, Dr. Hames discussed ethical issues in scholarly publication and the\u00a0work of the Committee on Publication Ethics<\/a>.\u00a0Here in the second part, she discusses how the journal editorial process has evolved over the years and what the community can expect from peer review.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

You have 20 years\u2019 experience as a managing editor, over which time journal processes have evolved remarkably. In your opinion why are some researchers and peer reviewers dissatisfied with the traditional peer review process?<\/strong><\/p>\n

There has been considerable evolution in the way journal editorial work is done, such as the introduction of online working and tools to detect textual duplication or inappropriate image manipulation, but the basic principles of good practice in peer review remain the same \u2013 they are independent of system and access or business model. There have always been criticisms of peer review, but they are now more visible and the subject of much public discussion and debate. Also, the scholarly publishing world, and its relationship with the research community, is changing. However, surveys show that researchers generally want to improve peer review rather than get rid of it. The\u00a0Taylor & Francis Open Access Survey (March 2013)<\/a>\u00a0found that peer review was rated the most important service authors expect to receive when paying to have their papers published open access, \u00a0coming above both rapid peer review and rapid publication. A major problem is the great variation in the quality of peer review across journals. Also, the \u2018fake reviewer\u2019 cases that started emerging in 2012 (details can be found in the\u00a0\u2018faked emails\u2019 category on the\u00a0Retraction Watch<\/em>\u00a0blog<\/a>) decreased confidence enormously because it became apparent that some journals weren\u2019t carrying out the most basic reviewer checks. Even I, who thought I\u2019d seen it all in my 30-plus years in scholarly publishing, was shocked.<\/p>\n

There is also increasing concern and impatience with the \u2018wastage\u2019 in traditional peer review, where manuscripts may be reviewed a number of times, going from journal to journal until accepted for publication. This is stretching a system that is already starting to creak. I\u2019m hearing from a number of editors that they are finding it more and more difficult to find reviewers. This is, therefore, one of the main areas people are addressing and looking for solutions, for example cascading review, where manuscripts and the associated reviews can be passed on with the authors\u2019 permission to other\u00a0journals for consideration, and portable review, where reviews are provided to authors, sometimes by independent peer-review services, and the authors can include them with their submissions. Other initiatives to avoid review and reviewer time wastage include review and referral to best-fit target journals by independent companies.<\/p>\n

The internet has opened up opportunities for experimentation with new systems and models of peer review. Many new players are entering the field, some from outside the traditional journal ecosystem. It is a very exciting time! It\u2019s difficult to predict which initiatives will be successful, which sustainable and scalable. They do, however, represent a real challenge to traditional journals and publishers, who need to evolve and innovate, which they are beginning to, to provide what the research community needs and to meet the expectations and requirements of research funders.<\/p>\n

Two other issues have contributed to researcher dissatisfaction with peer review. First, the lack of transparency in the process, and efforts are being made to address this, for example by publishing the reviewers\u2019 reports and editorial decisions with articles. Second, there has been growing frustration that peer-review activity hasn\u2019t to date been considered as something that \u2018counts\u2019 in a researcher\u2019s research and scholarly contribution record. That too is changing and projects are underway looking into how peer-review activity can be appropriately acknowledged and tied to, for example, researchers\u2019 ORCID records (http:\/\/orcid.org\/blog\/2014\/04\/08\/orcid-and-casrai-acknowledging-peer-review-activities<\/a>). Once peer-reviewing is awarded appropriate recognition as a professional activity, this may act as an increased incentive to review and provide quality reviews.<\/p>\n

In light of the recent cases of unethical or poor research practices, what should the scholarly community realistically expect from a peer review?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Members of the scholarly community have a right to expect that the work they send to journals is treated and assessed appropriately and fairly, also that information about its submission and review is kept confidential unless a journal\u2019s model involves openness, and that no one involved in the handling and peer review of their manuscripts uses that privileged information for their own gain. \u00a0They have a right to expect good constructive reviews from individuals who are experts and that it is the work they\u2019ve submitted that is being assessed, not them personally. If researchers get quality service when they are authors and are treated well by journals when they are reviewers \u2013 not all are – it\u2019s more likely that they\u2019ll take part in reviewing for those journals and provide quality reviews.<\/p>\n

Researchers have many commitments; they are often overstretched, and their time is valuable. Many, quite understandably, feel considerable frustration when they have to spend more time than should be necessary trying to submit manuscripts or reviews because of inadequacies in journals\u2019 system or instructions. All journals should regularly evaluate their processes and make sure they are fit for purpose. All the information and correspondence for authors and reviewers should also be checked regularly and updated as necessary, ensuring consistency across website pages, the online manuscript system, and correspondence. If this isn\u2019t done, researchers may decide to go elsewhere next time to submit or review.<\/p>\n

\"Dr.<\/p>\n

Dr. Irene Hames with Dr. Yan Shuai, President of the Society of China University Journals and Deputy Director of Tsinghua University Press (which publishes the Chinese version of Dr. Hames peer review book, <\/em>Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals). Photo taken at\u00a0International Seminar of Medical Journal Editors, Shanghai, China, April 2014, where Dr. Hames gave invited talks on peer review and publication ethics.<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

You have\u00a0<\/strong>explained<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0that peer review relies on a \u201creciprocal process\u201d in which \u201cauthors and reviewers are mostly the same community\u201d and everyone does their fair share of reviewing. Is it challenging for journal editors to ensure that there is a good balance between submitting and reviewing manuscripts?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It\u2019s quite straightforward nowadays for journals to monitor reviewing activity at their own journals – manuscript tracking systems make this very easy. A potential reviewer\u2019s reviewing load, present and past, should always be checked before they are approached to make sure they aren\u2019t overloaded at any one time or haven\u2019t been asked too many times over the past year. But editors can only work towards achieving a good balance between submissions and reviewing at their own journals (and give gentle reminders to those who submit lots of manuscripts but do little reviewing for them). Researchers get review requests not only from a range of other journals, but also from grant funders and, now, the new organizations that are entering the field. All are competing for the same pool of reviewers, so building strong relationships and treating reviewers well are becoming even more important.<\/p>\n

Be sure to read the last part of this interview series, Keeping the scholarly record sound — a journal editor’s duty<\/a><\/em>. Dr. Hames explains how journals should handle studies with flaws. She also discusses how she works with over 5,000 scientists, from Nobel prize winners to postdoctoral researchers\u00a0and PhD students to help promote a public understanding of science.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":33313,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false},"new_categories":[],"new_tags":[],"series":[2833],"class_list":["post-6147","experts","type-experts","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","series-interview-with-dr-irene-hames"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Irene Hames (Research-Publication & Peer-Review Specialist) discusses how the journal editorial process has evolved over the years | Editage Insights industry experts interview series<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In this interview, Dr. Hames discusses how the journal editorial process has evolved over the years, the dissatisfaction with the traditional peer review process, and what the scholarly community should realistically expect from peer reviewers.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Irene Hames (Research-Publication & Peer-Review Specialist) discusses how the journal editorial process has evolved over the years | Editage Insights industry experts interview series\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In this interview, Dr. Hames discusses how the journal editorial process has evolved over the years, the dissatisfaction with the traditional peer review process, and what the scholarly community should realistically expect from peer reviewers.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Editage Insights\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Editage\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-09-19T09:41:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/editage-insights-generic-banner.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"870\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"446\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Editage\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress\",\"name\":\"Dr. Irene Hames (Research-Publication & Peer-Review Specialist) discusses how the journal editorial process has evolved over the years | Editage Insights industry experts interview series\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/editage-insights-generic-banner_298.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-06-16T07:04:37+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-09-19T09:41:19+00:00\",\"description\":\"In this interview, Dr. Hames discusses how the journal editorial process has evolved over the years, the dissatisfaction with the traditional peer review process, and what the scholarly community should realistically expect from peer reviewers.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/editage-insights-generic-banner_298.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/editage-insights-generic-banner_298.webp\",\"width\":656,\"height\":336},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Interviews\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/experts\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"The peer review process: challenges and progress\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/\",\"name\":\"Editage Insights\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Editage Insights\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/editage-insights-logo-1-scaled.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/editage-insights-logo-1-scaled.webp\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":324,\"caption\":\"Editage Insights\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Editage\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Editage\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. Irene Hames (Research-Publication & Peer-Review Specialist) discusses how the journal editorial process has evolved over the years | Editage Insights industry experts interview series","description":"In this interview, Dr. Hames discusses how the journal editorial process has evolved over the years, the dissatisfaction with the traditional peer review process, and what the scholarly community should realistically expect from peer reviewers.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Irene Hames (Research-Publication & Peer-Review Specialist) discusses how the journal editorial process has evolved over the years | Editage Insights industry experts interview series","og_description":"In this interview, Dr. Hames discusses how the journal editorial process has evolved over the years, the dissatisfaction with the traditional peer review process, and what the scholarly community should realistically expect from peer reviewers.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress","og_site_name":"Editage Insights","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Editage","article_modified_time":"2025-09-19T09:41:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":870,"height":446,"url":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/editage-insights-generic-banner.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_site":"@Editage","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress","url":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress","name":"Dr. Irene Hames (Research-Publication & Peer-Review Specialist) discusses how the journal editorial process has evolved over the years | Editage Insights industry experts interview series","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/editage-insights-generic-banner_298.webp","datePublished":"2014-06-16T07:04:37+00:00","dateModified":"2025-09-19T09:41:19+00:00","description":"In this interview, Dr. Hames discusses how the journal editorial process has evolved over the years, the dissatisfaction with the traditional peer review process, and what the scholarly community should realistically expect from peer reviewers.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/editage-insights-generic-banner_298.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/editage-insights-generic-banner_298.webp","width":656,"height":336},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-peer-review-process-challenges-and-progress#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Interviews","item":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/experts"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"The peer review process: challenges and progress"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/","name":"Editage Insights","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#organization","name":"Editage Insights","url":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/editage-insights-logo-1-scaled.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/editage-insights-logo-1-scaled.webp","width":2560,"height":324,"caption":"Editage Insights"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Editage","https:\/\/x.com\/Editage"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/experts\/6147","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/experts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/experts"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/experts\/6147\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/33313"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"new_categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/new_categories?post=6147"},{"taxonomy":"new_tags","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/new_tags?post=6147"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=6147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}