In this series of posts exploring how trust in peer review is established, maintained, and delivered, we began yesterday by discussing the author’s role in establishing trust through honest research and reporting practices.
Today, we will explore the responsibilities of the reviewers to further develop that trust through unbiased and quality review practices that lead to an ultimate goal of publishing quality work that is accepted and trusted by the readers.
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.
September 21-25 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.
As academic authors, we participate in the peer review process and recognize the importance of peer review on the scholarly publishing process.
In her recent webinar, “An Editor’s View From Journal Article Submission to Publication”, Micki M. Caskey discussed the aspects of a Revise & Resubmit (R&R) decision from a publisher and what authors should do in response to such a decision.
First, she says, “celebrate the decision”. Then, respond to the reviewer feedback.
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.
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
