Developing #TrustInPeerReview from author to audience, Part 1: Trust starts with the author

As noted yesterday, this week marks the sixth annual Peer Review Week event with a focus this year on “shining a light on how the peer review process works and why it helps build trust in research” through its theme, Trust in Peer Review.

In keeping with this theme, while focusing on the role that authors have in the establishment of trust in the peer review process, we will spend the next few days exploring how trust in peer review is established, maintained, and delivered. As the original creator of the work, trust starts with the author.

Feedback: Ah, just right

Undoubtedly, we all know the story of Goldilocks and Three Bears. The part I have in mind, is when Goldilocks seeks equilibrium: porridge neither too hot nor cold and a bed neither too soft nor too hard.

Many authors seek out feedback or opinions on their work before submission. Of course, peer review will yield comments and likely things to change or address. All this feedback has value, but it is important to cast it in the right light.

3 Tips for making revision decisions based on reviewer comments

In a recent TAA webinar, “Responding to Reviewers’ Comments”, Mark Pedretti shared three key elements to responding to reviewer comments when presented with the opportunity to revise and resubmit a journal article. In addition to sizing up the editors and writing the response letter, Pedretti shared advice on how to evaluate the reviewer comments to make revision decisions that improve your submission.

Tip #1 – Categorize reviewer comments

What makes for a quality peer review? TAA members’ perspectives

In preparation for this week’s Peer Review Week theme of “Quality in Peer Review”, I decided to reach out to several members of our TAA community for insight into the peer review process from either the author’s perspective, reviewer’s perspective, or both.

Regardless of the perspective, I asked for the answer to a single question, “What makes for a quality peer review process?” The insights of eight TAA members are shared below.