In recent years the pressure on academics and researchers to publish in reputable journals has increased immensely. This not only puts pressure on prospective authors of manuscripts, but also on invited reviewers of these manuscripts, who in most cases are also researchers under the same pressure.
This has been a concern to myself and the editors of
Minerals Engineering for some time, as the often long process of finding suitable reviewers for a manuscript becomes a source of frustration for the authors.
So I very much appreciate this timely submission from Joshua Bayliss, Elsevier’s Executive Publishing Manager for Minerals Engineering:
Minerals Engineering has experienced a great deal of growth in the last 2 years, owing to an influx in submissions. This is a magnificent achievement and we thank all authors who have sent their hard work to us for consideration, and we very much welcome your manuscript if it falls into the Aims & Scope.
|
Manuscripts submitted to Minerals Engineering |
Nonetheless, these rises in submission numbers do not come without their challenges. Minerals Engineering is proud to consistently uphold a strict and rigorous peer review policy. This means that each and every manuscript - once determined to be in scope and of sufficient written quality - is reviewed by at least two external peer reviewers.
The invitation to review is, of course, always optional. We are mindful of the demands on our reviewers’ time and thus our invitations are very much dependent on the good-will and time of the reviewers being invited who retain the option to decline to do the review for us.
For Minerals Engineering, reviewers remain an important part of the journal’s lifecycle and sustainability. Despite this fact, the number of reviewers agreeing to review for the journal appears to be dwindling: in 2017 the rate of acceptance stood at 75% but has unfortunately dropped to just 60% in 2018, a figure which appears to be continuing for 2019 so far. This is a worrying situation and puts undue strain on a handful of individuals who are thus performing more reviews for us (you know who you are and we thank you very much for your services to the journal as we are sure the authors do!
Minerals Engineering, as with any academic journal, relies heavily on its reviewers to be able to help authors achieve their potential and write the best papers that they can – all authors should expect to have their work reviewed by key figures in the field and not just the editor. Reviewers’ comments are a vital source of both criticism and appraisal for the hard work done and are an essential opportunity for improvement before final publication of results, thus forming an integral part of academia and the ‘cornerstone of scholarly publishing’ (Hames, 2012, p.20).
In summary, peer review is a truly symbiotic ecosystem where authors, editors and reviewers all work in unison with each other by sharing and delivering tips and tricks on how to write something that truly matters for the community. We request, therefore, that all reviewers and editors please carefully consider their next invitation to review, taking into account their most vital role in the academic ecosystem.
If you have any questions or suggestion for the journal, please do not hesitate to reach out.
References
Hames, I (2012), ‘Peer Review in a Rapidly Evolving Publishing Landscape’, in Campbell, E., et.al. (eds.) Academic and Professional Publishing, Oxford: Chandos Publishing, pp.15-52
Joshua Bayliss, Publisher
j.bayliss@elsevier.com