Even with the assistance of a good editorial assistant or editorial team, the peer review process can be draining and difficult for both editors and authors. In the 2018 Global State of Review, which was released by Publons, 75% of editors stated that finding reviewers was their most difficult task as a journal editor. The reason? According to the same report, 71% of reviewers say they receive out-of-scope invites that they must decline.
And editors aren’t the only ones struggling. Many times, manuscripts go through multiple rounds of peer review because reviewers often focus on journal fit instead of critiquing the actual scientific merit of the text. This can lead to frustration for authors who must deal with serial rereview cycles or are left with a rejection letter based solely on journal scope with little to no comment on how sound their research is. All of this can lead many authors and editors to be discouraged by the peer review process, leading to a loss of interest in the journal.
But have no fear! New platforms and technology are being developed in an attempt to alleviate this stress. EMBO Press launched reviewcommons.org in December of 2019 with the goal of creating an independent peer review platform that authors can use before submitting to a journal. Working with affiliate journals such as Life Science Alliance, EMBO Reports, and PLOS One, this tool seeks to accelerate the peer review process by providing expedited reviews from qualified reviewers, while also focusing the manuscript review on the science as opposed to a journal’s scope. Once a manuscript is reviewed using this platform, readers can access peer reviews and author responses alongside a preprint copy of the manuscript. After an independent peer review is completed on this platform, authors can also be given an option to transfer their manuscript to one of the platform’s affiliate journals with the goal of expedited journal acceptance thanks to this initial independent review step.
For journal editors, UNSILO’s recently introduced Reviewer Finder API could be helpful in solving the problem of finding qualified reviewers. The API, which is part of the UNSILO Evaluate suite, was integrated into PeerJ’s peer review processing in December of 2019. This reviewer matching tool is designed to suggest reviewer candidates for submitted manuscripts by using concept extraction and vectoring. The tool also detects and filters out people who coauthored papers with the manuscript authors in the last three years as well as current coaffiliation COIs and presents reviewer statistics based on experience and productivity relative to the topic of the manuscript.
While the peer review process will always have its issues that can frustrate authors and editors, the new tools mentioned above are a step in the right direction toward improving the peer review experience for all involved. Has your journal or journal society implemented similar tools or programs? If so, let us know in the comments below!
