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.
The net effect is a slowing down of the essential peer-review process, a symbiotic collaboration between all researchers in a scientific field (Peer-review. Is it outdated? 21 March 2011).
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 |
Such growth has been instrumental in allowing us to maintain a premier position in the rankings, translating in us publishing some of the best content in the field (see the top-cited articles) and the coveted Impact Factor of 3.315.
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
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
j.bayliss@elsevier.com
.jpg)
I am not accepting anonymous comments on this posting. If you do have a comment and do not have a Google account, then use the Anonymous option, but leave your name and affiliation. Or email directly to me
ReplyDeleteKudos to reviewers. The data does suggest a system under stress. What possibilities for improvement exist, e.g., use of automation for some of the simpler aspect of review - for example, the use of software around theses, dissertation, licentiate review looking for evidence of excessive or unreferenced copying from prior works.
ReplyDeleteIf the community of reviewers could agree on some characteristics for an acceptable paper, including those often missed, how difficult would it be to build some text / morphology analyzer intelligence that could give feedback while requiring minimum human intervention? In fact, this might be simple enough that it could be provided to the authors to improve the quality of initial submissions.
Robert Seitz, Arizona, USA
Dear Robert,
DeleteMany thanks for your comment, please allow me to respond. Here at Elsevier we are very mindful of the above stresses on both editors and reviewers and are constantly looking for ways to innovate in the peer review process and make it more efficient. One of the ways in which we are trying to improve the process is to develop technological advancements--very similar to those that you have described above--which provide advanced data-driven tools to help in the decision making process.
Please sign up to Elsevier Connect at https://www.elsevier.com/connect where we regularly publish content in this very area (and others) which you may find useful.
Best wishes,
Joshua
Elsevier
I want to arise some concerns:
ReplyDeleteWhy reviewers can see the name(s) and affiliation(s) of author(s) ? Is it fair for reviewers to know the authors while the paper is under blind review ? More importantly, how can the journal team assure that the review is objective when a reviewer has already a potential conflict with the author(s) whom the reviewer knows ?
I believe manuscripts should be evaluated under double-blind peer review.
Mahmut Camalan, Turkey
Dear Mahmut,
DeleteMany thanks for your comment. There are pros and cons for both options, and I certainly understand you reasons for preferring a double-blind approach. Many journals operate in this respect, and oftentimes the choice of the approach can vary between subject field, editors involved, or system requirements. Just to highlight some elements here: the reviewer is required to communicate any potential conflicts of interest when they are invited. This requirement is made explicit at invitation stage and the single-blind option --where reviewers can see the author--makes this initial assessment easier. We have many cases where reviewers reject to review on these grounds and thank them for their honesty.
Nonetheless, suggestions on how to improve the peer review process for Minerals Engineering will always be taken on board and I thank you for taking the time to raise this.
Best wishes,
Joshua
Elsevier
I fully understand the points raised by Barry. I have no simple answers but I may make some observations. With Mineral Engineering becoming too specialised (only one or two aspects but no wide perspective) to find experts to review may be getting difficult. I also feel that many papers have too much of introduction, elaborate explanations and too many mathematical details.
ReplyDeleteCan we find something which fits in between a technical note and a full paper--this would cut down time to be spent both by reviewers and readers; by now most of us know basics of what an author wants to convey-let him convey the contents in a sharp manner; the Formats of many papers are too conventional; sometimes I feel even the titles are too long and general.
I am an old timer and so please take my observations "as a point of view"
Hi, This is a very complicated issue. Academics need peer-reviewed papers as it helps them get funding and also with career development. Peer-review takes the burden of determining the quality to some extent off the grant reviewers etc.. This usually means publishing in traditional peer-reviewed journals. If a paper goes into a traditional journal this is not as readily available as if it is online with open access. Although online open-access may be available it tends to be expensive in traditional journals. If the main objective is to get the information out then just make it open-access with review. Some open-access online journals give perks for reviewers. Professional people have limited time available and a good review of a paper takes say a day. Perhaps they should get some form of compensation. With regards to double-blind peer review, I once talked to a fellow who said when he reviews a paper he communicates with the authors directly!
ReplyDeleteI often wonder that maybe that is a good technique!
Chris Pickles
Queen's University
Dear Chris,
DeleteMany thanks for your comments and your insights. I will just take this opportunity to elucidate some elements which are integral to the peer review process and ensure a level of quality is upheld, and that that level of quality can be monitored.
The peer review systems in place--with the automated reminders and invitations all being housed on one system--provide an essential way to audit the peer review process which would otherwise be entirely impossible. Many third parties which judge the quality of journals--such as those which award Impact Factors--rely on having this information available in order to make an accurate assessment of the journal.
As stated above in a separate comment, we at Elsevier fully understand the constraints on people's time and are constantly looking for ways in which we may sustainably recognise and reward reviewers for the hard work they put in. The current systems and processes in place will never be perfect and certainly do have areas we can focus on, but we do always strive to ensure that they are fit for purpose and provide useful tools for authors, reviewers and editors.
Many thanks,
Joshua
Elsevier
Dear Dr. Wills,
ReplyDeleteIt is not a good news if the peer-review system is creaking. At some stage peer review becomes unavoidable. At the same time there should be a way out for unconventional topics which peers may not like. For example agricultural scientists (the peers) disbelieve if one says that rock phosphate (in fine size along with N containing materials such as Urea or Organic Manure) shows agronomic efficiency that surpasses that of Di Ammonium Phosphate even in alkaline soils. Finally I posted my findings on website.
Principles of Phosphate Fertilization and PROM – Progress Review 2012. This article is not peer reviewed but how can a peer question experimental results?
While peer review needs to be continued there is also a need to find alternate methods of publication.
Thanks,
Sekhar
I agree with Dr.Sekhar; we have a problem and I am sure we will find a "simple and implementable" solution.
ReplyDeleteKeep getting inputs from those who have been reviewing recently.
We all looked at the point raised from the "review" point of view. I want to have a look at it from the role the Authors have to play before sending a paper for publication.I appeal to authors to put in a bit more time and pay more attention in going through the script(may even show it to some of your colleagues) before it is sent.
ReplyDeletePl take my comment in a positive manner so that good journals will have more time to process and publish; it would reduce the burden on reviewing also.