The Art and Science of Effective Paper Reviewing

Authors who submit papers to professional journals believe that their work is worthy of publication, but many journals report acceptance rates of less than 50%. Authors who receive negative decisions often feel that the review process was not fair to them. Editors try to ensure that the reviewing of a paper is comprehensive. Also, editors are continually trying to improve the review process. Information about the review process and reviewers’ perspectives may be of value to all authors in preparing papers, which will help them be more successful in having their papers published in journals of their choice. Writing a paper that will be well received by editors and reviewers is partially an art, as decisions are not solely based on the technical content. The goal of this editorial is to make potential authors aware of the multitude of factors that influence decisions as to the suitability of a paper for publication. Since the assessments by reviewers are the primary decision tools, the focus of this editorial will be from the perspective of the review process. It may be worthwhile to briefly summarize the review process. The review process can be viewed in terms of three stakeholders: the authors, the editors, and the reviewers. Each stakeholder has rights and responsibilities. When all of the stakeholders efficiently meet their responsibilities, the review process works well and the journal contains quality papers. When an author has submitted a paper to this journal for review and the file has been cleared by the editorial staff, the editor-in-chief (EIC) checks to ensure that the paper is technically appropriate and readable and, if so, assigns the paper to a section editor (SE), who has the responsibility of identifying an appropriate associate editor (AE). Having three levels of editorial review may seem redundant, but helps to distribute the work load and, more importantly, ensures a broader assessment of papers. The AE then identifies typically three reviewers who are knowledgeable about the topic of the paper. Reviewers may be selected from an electronic database through the use of keywords, or the AE may select experts because of their reputation in the field. Ideally, persons who are invited to be a reviewer will respond to the request in a timely manner whether they will accept or decline the review. Once reviewers electronically submit their assessments of the paper into the Editorial Manager system, the AE evaluates the reviews to ensure that the comments are reasonable and unbiased. The AE may provide additional comments that are intended to help the authors improve the paper. The folder is then transferred to the SE, who reviews the file, makes additional assessment notes, and forwards it to the EIC who renders a decision and may provide additional comments. This multilevel editorial review is intended to ensure that submissions receive a fair assessment with comments on changes that can lead to a paper of high technical quality. Each editor has the responsibility to ensure that the reviews are conducted in a timely manner. Since this editorial focuses on paper review, the spotlight will be on the responsibilities of the reviewers. For optimal results, reviews should be timely and comprehensive. First, it is important to reflect on the fact that reviewers are not reimbursed for their efforts, as they volunteer their time to provide paper reviews. Second, if the reviewer believes that reviewing the paper would represent a conflict of interest, he/she should contact the AE and explain the issues involved. Third, confidentiality is important; therefore, the reviewer should not share the paper with others without contacting the AE and explaining the reason that input from another party would be beneficial to the review. Fourth, if the reviewer suspects plagiarism, fraud, dual publication, or other issues with ethical implications, the AE should be contacted for advice. The primary responsibility of a reviewer is to evaluate the accuracy of the technical content of the paper and provide an opinion on the value of the work to the profession. This includes assessment of the relevance and timeliness of the material. The paper should use state-of-the-art methods. It is important that a paper be based on a novel idea. Authors should reference previous works that reflect current knowledge, and then clearly emphasize how the paper advances the state of the art beyond current work. The authors’ failure to show advancements in knowledge is a common reason for a reviewer recommending that a paper be declined. The reviewers determine whether or not the content of the paper is based on outdated methods or provides a novel approach to a problem; this as an important decision criterion. Also, a paper should be balanced and fair when making comparisons to existing methods and should provide information of interest to a broad readership; reviewers should assess the extent to which this issue is addressed by the authors. When assessing the quality of a paper, it is worth repeating that reviewers tend to focus on novelty, i.e., the originality of the work, as this is the primary indicator of an advancement of the state of the art. A significantly new model, method of analysis, or analytical or numerical approach to solving a problem is usually considered a novel advancement; however, the improvement of an existing model or method may be innovative and reflect sufficient novelty to be accepted. When authors fail to emphasize the novelty of the research, the value of the paper may not be recognized by the reviewers. By emphasizing the specific nature of the innovation of the research, the authors can impress the reviewers and editors as to the value and uniqueness of the work. The research goals and objectives should be strong statements that indicate how completion of the research represents an original approach to solving the problem; however, the statement of the research goal as well as the objectives should not be limited to statements that support the novelty of the work. The uniqueness of the approach may also be included as an objective. When discussing the state of the art of the paper’s topic, the novelty of the work should be discussed in a positive way that does not present existing methods in a negative light.