Currently, it seems to have a sort of shortage of researchers available to review manuscripts. This is completely understandable, once reviewers usually do not get benefits back and are fully busy with other activities. Perhaps the decline rate to review manuscripts is growing due to these and other reasons. Perhaps journals should start rethinking the benefits for reviewers.
Regardless, the lack of expert reviewers slows down the review process and publication and is increasingly becoming a barrier for journals. In addition, the unavailability of experts may indirectly compromise the quality of publications.
However, with the Covid-19 pandemic, research labs were forced to slow down their activities and ongoing studies (except for those that the timing of data collect is critical).
Hence, since we are (almost) all home, even in the context of tons of activities previously left apart that we are now working, shouldn't we take some of the free time to help each other by reviewing other articles, when invited?
Not all of us can directly help in the battle against Covid-19. But we can maybe indirectly help speeding up and improving the quality of the publications, by accepting further review invitations.
That is a mere proposal.
Kind regards,
Flavio Cadegiani, MD, MSc, PhD
Very good point. I am an editor of a biomedical journal and we receive quite some papers on COVID-19 and such papers have some priority in the editorial process.
This is the first time since 1989 that I have felt that I can - sort of - "see" the first waves of a new and exciting trend in science. In the previous one I was very active in developing the analysis of urban traffic flows - a totally different ball game! - but nevertheless exciting. Good luck, Christian! :-)
I am associated with several journals.I usually do not take much time to review the paper. In case, I receive any manuscript on Coronavirus, I will do the needful immediately.
The editors seem to be rejecting a lot of articles to try to reduce the load on reviewers. I have had several good articles rejected...
im editor of Disaster and emergency medicine journal. according to the board resolutions COVID-19 articles have priority and decisions should be within 7 days of being submitted.
Submitted a paper a while ago. Chased up journal. Informed that no reviews are available as they are clinicians working to treat Covid patients.
Do you have any suggestion for us?
I mean the best titles about COVID-19 that have enough articles for making a systematic review article?
In your idea, what crucial topics are not considered yet?
The point you have highlighted is really a good think to realize by the research community so that contribution done by of ours and others will be peer reviewed and get published after that.
As researchers and scientists publishing the results of our research, we are interested in the effective editorial and publishing processes despite the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic (causing Covid-19 disease). However, this issue is determined by the scale and development phase of the pandemic in the country.
Greetings,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic I commuted an hour to work (each way). Furthermore, my data collection was delayed to minimize face-to-face interactions with participants. As a result I have found myself with significantly more time to dedicate to writing and reviewing papers. Perhaps I am in the minority here; however, I don't understand why there is such a shortage of reviewers at this time - I would expect, if anything, that the number of reviewers available would stay relativiley the same or even increase.
I'd be certain the transition to online teaching truncated any free time a researcher with teaching responsibilities had to dedicate to their own work, let alone reviewing. We do know that peer-reviewing is essential. However, we also know that the whole system needs revamping. It is really senior scientists or known experts in the field reviewing papers? Are professors only reviewing by "subcontracting" their reviews to graduate students? Graduate students are extremely knowledgeable, I understand, but by default not as qualified as the mentor who was the expert contacted in the first place. Are experts taking their time to carefully review? From a very reputable journal I once got a review that was about five sentences long and all in lower case. Had I been the editor I would have been embarrassed to forward that to an author. All of these are empirical questions. Whereas I am sure you are right and that the pandemic has altered the process, the whole process was problematic to begin with.
No. Definitely not. To be in a hurry with a refereeing duty is never a good idea. And I can reassure you that juniors are not required to write a peer-review - because a junior is not a peer! I have - on occasion - let a PhD student read a manuscript, and had a go at evaluating - with strong backup. But I would not use any of their comments, while I would - of course - let the PhD students see my final review. That might provide them a steeper learning curve.
The purpose of refereeing is not to be quick, but to be thorough! I will never hurry up a duty that should be detailed. Let the next issue stall for another Month, and perhaps have a thicker issue next time, depending on the pace of reviewers. We cannot be lax in this duty, as it would be the doom for peer reviews. I have spoken.