Peer Reviewer's Messsage - Dr. Richard Xiao
When the Editor of GLOSSA, Dr. Zoran Vujisic, invited me to write a message for our readers, in my capacity as a Review Board member, I was only too pleased to do so. It is indeed a great pleasure and an honor for me to have the opportunity to share with our readers my views on peer reviewing in academic publishing.
An academic journal differs from a magazine in many different ways, for example, in their purposes, authors, readers, contents, and frequencies. The most importance difference, however, is that articles published in an academic journal is typically peer reviewed whereas those appearing in a magazine are not. The editor of a magazine, when receiving a submission, will first decide whether the topic is likely to be of interest to its target readership and if it is, will edit the submission to ensure correct grammar and spellings before printing it. When an author submits an article to a peer-reviewed academic journal, however, one further step is in order. If the editor is satisfied that the submission falls within the scope of the journal, he or she will send the submission to two or three peer reviewers, who are expected to get back to the editor, within the specified time scale, with their expertly recommendations as well as comments that justify their decisions and suggestions that help the author to improve or enhance the manuscript. These recommendations and comments can help the editor to decide whether to accept or reject the submission. In this sense, it can be said that one of the important functions of peer review is “quality control” for academic publishing.
Enhancement is yet another important function of peer review. It is important to note that a peer reviewer’s report should not only help the editor in pre-publication screening but, more importantly in my view, also provide constructive and supportive comments wherever possible which can help the author to improve or enhance his or her manuscript. As the Policy Manual (p.21) of GLOSSA states, “A good peer review is supportive, constructive, thoughtful, and fair.” This mentoring role of peer review is particularly important for early-career researchers, from which I have greatly benefited myself.
While peer review is generally recognized as the touchstone of the modern scientific method, it has nevertheless also met with a number of criticisms, the most common of which is that a peer review process is frustratingly slow, varying from several months to even several years. It is true that peer review inevitably slows down the publication of research findings, but this is a price one must pay for quality control of any kind, which is readily counterbalanced given the potentially enormous costs and damaging effects of regularly publishing deeply flawed research outputs if peer review were not in place. Also, editors of peer-reviewed journals are fully aware of the issue and usually require referees to provide their review reports within a reasonable time, for example three or four weeks, so as to expedite publication.
Some other allegations levelled against peer review actually relate to the malpractice on part of only a few irresponsible referees, for example, abuse of privileged information, arrogant yet unjustified biases, superficial and self-advertising comments, malicious statements and unfair condemnations without proper suggestions for revision, which are despised by any self-respecting referee. While such malpractice is rare, it is nevertheless detrimental to the reputation of peer review and has a particularly damaging effect on new entrants.
Writing a good peer review can be time-consuming, but referees are typically unpaid, and the nature of peer review renders their contribution anonymous. Then why are referees willing to spend many hours or even several days reading through and commenting on papers? Over the past five years, I have been a regular peer reviewer for a number of academic journals, publishers, and research councils. I know from my experience that many referees consider refereeing, just like disseminating and publishing their own research outputs, to be one of their responsibilities as an academic. The professional value of being recognized as a peer in their field of research, and thus the satisfaction that peer review brings, provide a stronger and more effective incentive than a money payment. On the other hand, peer reviewers understand that refereeing is reciprocal, because they are usually researchers and authors themselves, who also rely on other peers to review their own works in return. For me, refereeing is also a learning process. I wholeheartedly agree to the statement in the Policy Manual (p.15) of GLOSSA: “Being manuscript reviewers is one of the best and most effective ways to continue their own education as scholars.”
In conclusion, peer review can be said to be an essential, if not perfect, process that plays a central role in guaranteeing the quality of published works. In the words of Joan E. Sieber, who argued in Nature (2006), “One suspects that peer review is a bit like democracy – a bad system but the best one possible.”