Yesterday, today, tomorrow- peer review from the editor’s perspective
When a researcher wears an editor’s hat
As a scientist and researcher, one learns to question everything. As an editor, one must finally decide whether a paper is ready to move forward to publication or not. Having worn both hats for long stretches of my career, I have been able to see the researcher’s perspective while deciding whether to move ahead editorially with a manuscript.
On the other hand, as an editor as well as peer reviewer for several manuscripts over the years, I have seen things change drastically – with the current model at a clear breaking point. The number of requests for review have dramatically increased. The role of a managing editor or peer reviewer is more critical than ever before.
The irreplaceable impact of human judgement comes from experience and expertise along with wisdom.
At the same time, the tools available to aid publishers, editors and peer reviewers are getting more and more sophisticated over time. The issue being faced with AI entering every realm in our lives and careers is that we run the risk of becoming over-reliant. We also cannot honestly keep pace with the sheer volumes of manuscripts being processed for peer review without embracing AI tools, can we? So truly, it is a conundrum that requires deliberation and debate.
- How much should we rely on tools?
- When is it ok to sit back and use one’s own judgement?
- Is there a way to bring in new guidelines and alleviate the burden?
- Can (and should) we incentivize the efforts by all individuals involved?
Yesterday, journals were few and specialized to the field. Reviewers were truly peers – respected and renowned in the niche research area. You looked forward to (and dreaded) their feedback, read between the lines to guess who the reviewer might be, and even suggested names that should (or should not) review the paper. Yes, it was a small group who reviewed each other’s work globally, and you wanted to get the highest quality feedback form reviewers who had your best interest in mind!
Today, emails pour in daily from “Acta artefacta” which flood the inbox with requests to review as many papers as we can within “5 days.” In exchange the reviewer will be nominated to the Peer reviewer hall of fame. Ok this is a fictionalized scenario but the pain is real. Countless manuscripts pour into indexed journals, and editors need to continuously find peer reviewers. These “peers” are none other than researchers, who themselves are already strapped for time, resources and funds. So they may agree, or may refuse. Even a reviewer who agrees may end up ghosting the editor eventually. So the editor must reach out to more researchers… and so on.
Tomorrow, I dream of a day when the researcher will not need to wait for months wondering about their manuscript status while their research grows outdated or they get scooped. I imagine a scenario in which researchers who volunteer their time for peer review get credits that count towards their career progression. I envision a harmonious transition to a hybrid model of editorial-peer review workflow in which the time-consuming and labor-intensive steps of finding reviewers, fact-checking, communicating with all stakeholders becomes automated, leaving the experts to do what they are best at: unravel the science and move the field forward by using their knowledge where it is needed the most.
