To peer-review or not to peer-review

Experiences and reflections of early career researchers in navigating peer review

“Why do I need to peer review?”

“Am I good enough to review someone else’s paper?”

These questions are common in the minds of young researchers when tackling their first review. They crossed my mind when my supervisor handed me my first research article to co-review during the first year of my PhD. “You will learn more about the topic of your research if you review articles from the same field… the best way to learn is to learn from your peers,” was his advice. And that’s how I found my motivation to peer review! However, this was over a decade ago. In this evolving age of AI and technology, where one can carry out literature searches (and more!) efficiently, I wouldn’t be surprised if early career researchers (ECRs) had different motivations and challenges. I therefore spoke to two early career researchers to understand why peer reviewing is important to them.

For Romana, peer review was an integral part of her master’s degree curriculum. She felt that learning to structure constructive feedback and receiving training helped her gain confidence. “Even though it wasn’t for journal articles, I received training from my professors on how to critically read a paper, construct feedback, and deliver it effectively... and that was great,” she reflects.

Using peer review to improve knowledge & communication

It is generally acknowledged that peer reviewing is a great way to broaden one's knowledge of a field. Mohammad agrees and also points to how he got better at explaining his work to a new audience: “Reading other people’s work made me more aware of how I was writing my research for people who have never heard or read my work... I appreciated learning this as much as reading new papers.” Romana is of the same opinion: “Doing reviews has improved my science communication in general, and not just writing but also how I conduct my research.”

Leveraging technology in peer reviewing

This year’s Peer Review Week 새 탭/창에서 열기 is about technology and innovations, so, I shared insights of Elsevier’s in-house technology to understand Romana and Mohammad’s take on leveraging innovation and tools in peer reviewing. One thing we discussed was the Find Reviewer Tool, developed to help editors find relevant reviewers without bias. Both ECRs agreed that it could be extremely beneficial in reducing non-relevant invitations to researchers. They also felt that improved reviewer suggestions could build diversity in peer reviewing.

We also considered our online peer review tool (still in the pilot phase) ­– an intuitively-designed, online manuscript page for reviewers that allows them to provide comments and precise feedback directly in the manuscript. Romana was excited: “It’s a simple technology but could be a game changer in reducing the time spent on reviewing.” Mohammad was more cautious: “It might take some more time to transition, I suppose, as I am sure many people still prefer to download and read the paper.”

Final thoughts and advice

When wrapping up, I asked our interviewees to share some general advice and encouragement with their peers. Romana emphasized, “In the early stages of our careers learning how to conduct peer reviews not only benefits the scientific community but also enhances our research and communication skills.” Mohammad echoed the sentiment and added, “If you get the chance to peer review in your field, and if you have the time, go for it!”

Early in your career, you may have self-doubt but remember that your unique perspective adds value to research. Seek mentorship and training to foster critical and intellectual thinking. If you do not have access to training, Researcher Academy 새 탭/창에서 열기 offers a free, online, and certified peer reviewer course 새 탭/창에서 열기 to help you on your journey.

Disclaimer: All expressed opinions of the individual(s) interviewed are not necessarily the opinions of their employers.

Further reading & resources

• Volunteering to review

• Ten reasons to accept your (next) invitation to review

• How to conduct a review

• How to give constructive feedback in review

• Recognition innovation: enabling peer review activity integration with ORCID