{"id":3626,"date":"2020-09-17T14:53:29","date_gmt":"2020-09-17T14:53:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/do-researchers-from-emerging-research-countries-trust-peer-review\/"},"modified":"2025-04-04T11:14:19","modified_gmt":"2025-04-04T11:14:19","slug":"do-researchers-from-emerging-research-countries-trust-peer-reviews","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/do-researchers-from-emerging-research-countries-trust-peer-reviews","title":{"rendered":"Do researchers from emerging research countries trust peer review?"},"content":{"rendered":"

This article is part of Peer Review Week 2020. Join this event for exclusive live events, expert discussions, in-depth resources, and more by clicking here<\/a>.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

As you browse through social media, you will observe that most of the memes on your wall are by researchers passionately discussing their frustrations with the peer review process. Some complain about confusing or inadequate comments, while others discuss their experiences with Reviewer 2\u2014that peer reviewer who is considered angry, bitter and overly critical in his\/her reviewer comments. Surprisingly, this is not just an opinion in the West, but also prevalent among authors in emerging research powerhouses such as China, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, and India. Not all discussion about peer review is negative though. There are a few researchers that offer praise, highlighting constructive peer reviewer feedback, which helped strengthen their research. The truth is that love it or hate it, peer reviews play an integral part of the scholarly publishing process and research authors must learn to live with it. But in the run-up to the Peer Review Week 2020<\/a><\/b><\/span><\/span>, you have to ask, do researchers \u2013 especially from emerging research countries \u2013 really trust the process? <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

What are the common complaints about peer review?<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a world of fake news, it\u2019s crucial that new discoveries be verified by experts before being published. Harvard sociologist Mich\u00e8le Lamont, who analyzed peer review in her 2009 book, How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment<\/i>, correctly wrote that knowledge is not democratic; evaluating originality and intellectual significance can only be done by those who are experts in a field. This is why peer review is a crucial, widely accepted step to validate research and ensure it meets high quality standards, while giving researchers a chance to collaborate within the larger academic community. However, even as the scholarly publishing world evolves, this process has seen relatively minor changes since it was introduced some 300+ years ago, giving rise to growing criticism over the years. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

One possible reason for the rising dissent over peer review processes is probably the increasing quantum of research around the globe; this surge in manuscript submissions is fueled by the intense pressure to publish for researchers. While this is great for research, problems with quality, a lack of transparency and long delays in the peer review process have resulted in a general feeling of dissatisfaction. A Publons study indicated that over 13.7 million manuscripts are reviewed every year, with 50% of these reviews being handled by just 10% of all reviewers<\/b>.1<\/sup>This soaring volume of content is putting a strain on peer reviewers, and slowing down an already burdened system. Moreover, a lack of transparency in the traditionally mysterious peer review process means little is known about how it works, the time it takes, and how deep reviewers delve when assessing papers; this could lead to review errors and unjust conclusions. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

These flaws are highlighted by the 2019 Peer Review Survey by Sense about Science, in partnership with Elsevier. This survey revealed that unethical research practices, reviewer bias, and challenges in maintaining research integrity are eroding trust in the peer review process.2<\/sup><\/span><\/span> The increase in the number of predatory journals, many with unclear peer review processes, has led to spread of \u2018bad\u2019 science that is either irreproducible or insignificant, further weakening the trust people place in this evaluation system. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

So, how do authors, especially those from emerging research countries, perceive peer review?<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In 2018, Editage conducted a Global Author Survey that gathered comments from researchers across the world, with a majority of responses from China, India, Brazil, South Korea, and Japan. While most of the 6,853 participants were satisfied with the overall quality of peer reviewer comments received, a majority of respondents admitted difficulty in addressing peer reviewer comments and expressed unhappiness with some aspects of how peer reviews are conducted.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The survey found that about 60% of the respondents agreed that peer review comments were insightful, with 44-45% saying the comments were clear and constructive. On the other hand, 46-47% of the participants claimed reviewer comments could be confusing and often included additional research requests, which could be a reason why 70% of authors found it difficult to respond to peer reviewer comments.3<\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Fig 1: Author views of peer review comments based on their experience<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Source: Author Perspectives on Academic Publishing: Editage Global Survey Report, 2018<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

While examining geographies, it was observed that 62-79% of Chinese researchers said that peer review comments were insightful, easy to understand, and constructive. However, more than 60% of Chinese researchers also complained that comments from different reviewers could be conflicting or confusing, and often included requests for complex, time-consuming additional research.3<\/sup> Overall, the survey revealed a rather divided view on the value of peer review and the experiences associated with it. Many respondents seemed aware of the challenges journals and reviewers faced, and commented on the need for change to create more trust in the peer review process.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

What can be done to improve trust in the peer review process?<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The respondents in both surveys suggested several measures to strengthen trust in peer review. <\/span>In the Editage survey, researchers from emerging research countries emphasized the need for:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n