Problems a Reviewer Has to Deal With
Photo by Fábio Lucas on Unsplash
By Maxim Rozhkov
Academic Director in the Doctoral School of Management
HSE University
I bet you hate reviewers. Do you? There are lots of jokes about Reviewer. One can always blame reviewers for misunderstanding their text. But I am a reviewer, and I would like to stand up for reviewers. Peer reviewing is not the type of work you request yourself; you are usually invited to do the job. It is voluntary. The job is not paid, yet it has significant value: the reviewer can assess state-of-the-art research in their field of expertise. As for other rewards, some journals provide discounts or free access to Scopus for a month. However, it requires quite a large amount of time at the expense of other academic activities. Personally, I rarely decline invitations to review, which has resulted in more than 150 reviews written during the last six years. Two leading journals acknowledged my contributions with certificates that I’m very proud to have. I think my experience can be summarized and help my peers (pun intended) with academic activities.
You probably know that the majority of manuscripts are not accepted as they are. And up to 90% of submissions are rejected in top-tier journals1 (yet even rejected ones are not doomed2). If you are lucky, you get “accept with major revisions.” You are a winner if you get “accept with minor revisions.” “Accepted as is” on the first revision round is a legendary success, and I encourage you to share your outstanding academic skills if you have this achievement. It is sensible to be prepared for more than one round of revision. The “evolution” of a manuscript can take up to four stages of revision – sometimes a year passes from submission to decision. One of the manuscripts I co-authored is still in the second revision stage now, and this fact makes this topic even more relevant to me :)
The role of a reviewer for an author is invaluable: they may be the only readers to study your paper thoroughly. They usually intend to help the author improve the description of their research, recommend sources, and look at your research from a different angle. So don’t “kill the messenger.” Read reviewers’ comments (quite often they are very experienced academics) and the editor’s overall impressions, and make amendments.
Let me give you some insights into the reviewer’s job and describe common problems many authors have. My experience shows that the most common problems are connected with such issues as:
1) Clarity of the Manuscript
It should be absolutely clear that the manuscript is within the journal’s scope. For example, if the journal is connected with a certain field in management, the managerial implications should be clear and valid regardless of the method applied for the research. The literature review should be analytical and guide the reader to the idea that the manuscript fills an important gap in the research field. This gap is important to mention not only in the introduction but also in the conclusion section. Authors have to pay particular attention to describing the model, methods, and results. The discussion section is also very important, as it should clearly show the author’s position and contribution to the research field. Missed figures, irrelevant references, or references to retracted articles are things to avoid. Additional “polishing” of the manuscript should make its academic value crystal clear for reviewers and the editor.
2) Language Accuracy
Some manuscripts have serious issues with English. In general, it is not in itself a sufficient reason for rejection, but unnecessary language complexity amplifies the difficulty of understanding the research. Language quality usually correlates with the overall manuscript quality, thus a sufficient amount of time and effort should be invested in proofreading and editing before submission. Typos, an uneven flow, and an illogical structure are strong predictors of a “raw” manuscript, which is likely to be rejected.
3) Overreliance on AI Tools
There are a few AI-based tools that can be applied for writing a literature review section, for instance. But this approach should be used with extreme caution: experienced reviewers are familiar with important articles in the field and will spot inconsistency in the way a research item is referenced. AI tools can help you navigate the literature, but the writing itself is the author’s responsibility. Even if you use a reference manager, please double-check all the research items. I had a few cases when my own research articles were referenced incorrectly (they claimed that a different research method was used). So an effective strategy is to check, check, and check.
4) Arguing with Reviewers
Some authors tend to argue with the reviewers’ comments while submitting the manuscript after revision. In my view, it’s an ineffective strategy unless the issue is worth it. Sometimes it is easier to follow the reviewer’s recommendations. The reviewer’s major role is to help the author publish a high-quality paper.
I like my peer reviewing activity. It helps me develop a skill of paying more attention to details. I usually review manuscripts in a few passes. The first impression might be misleading, but certain issues are relatively easy to grasp. This job requires patience and time management. Besides, it has an educational value for me: I identify common flaws during the reviewing process and then try to eliminate these issues in my own research.
If you publish a good paper in a journal, you can automatically become a person whom the editor can consider as a potential reviewer. Do not hesitate and challenge yourself to review a manuscript. But commitment matters a lot: meet the deadlines, use the reviewer’s form, do the job thoroughly, aiming to help the author.
Join the dark side :)
References
1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03694-0 Thank you for re-checking the references (I appreciate your reviewing skills), dear reader. Here is another relevant quote from this research on the topic “…anonymous referees who could, and may be should, be taken to court for the vicious ad hominem attacks…” Beware!
2. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2241-1