Championing our peer reviewers during the pandemic

IF 1.4 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
A. Reupert
{"title":"Championing our peer reviewers during the pandemic","authors":"A. Reupert","doi":"10.1080/18387357.2021.1985298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For Editors, or at least for me, the peer review process can be instructive, helpful and stimulating, but also at times frustrating (I have one paper where I requested 23 reviewers before two reviewers accepted the invitation to review). It can be challenging to find appropriate reviewers and ensure they deliver timely, fair and constructive reports that serve to make the paper stronger, and hopefully not crush the authors’ spirits (too much), even if it is eventually a ‘reject’. Over the course of the pandemic, I have seen an increase in the number of submissions during the pandemic. Others have also commented on the unprecedented volume of research conducted during this time and the subsequent number of papers submitted to journals (Bauchner, Fontanarosa, & Golub, 2020). However, the quality of some COVID-related papers is at times questionable and where the tendency to deliver quick research has come at the expense of rigorous research. For example, of the total number of COVID-related papers submitted to Advances in Mental Health, 70% were rejected without going to review, with others still in review (and so possibly rejected in the long term). This is unfortunate because now more than ever it is critical that we offer timely, evidence-based articles that can be used to influence clinical practice and policy. Simultaneously, I have found it significantly more challenging to find reviewers during the pandemic, and I am not sure why, given the increase in publications. You would hope that as authors submit (and sometimes publish) more, they would review more, though I acknowledge that one does not necessarily follow the other. It could be that the pandemic has created a new field of research in which many do not feel confident to review. Additionally, recent trends suggest that the pandemic has impacted researchers differently, along gendered lines. As a result of stay-at-home orders and increased caring responsibilities, many academic women have struggled to research, resulting in a decreased number of publications by women, even though the proportion of research published by men has increased (Allen et al., 2021). Others have shown that men and women review papers differently (König & Ropers, 2021) but how the pandemic may have impacted peer reviewers along gender lines (including agreeing to review) is not clear. Research might be conducted to examine the proportionate number of women/male reviewers before and during the pandemic to explore this further. Notwithstanding these issues, this editorial serves to champion the many reviewers we call on for Advances in Mental Health, and especially during the pandemic. The peer review process is not without its critics, who point out that the process can result in publication delays and may not always identify errors, fraud or authors’ unethical behaviour. Peer reviewers can also be biased (either consciously or not) towards certain authors (on the basis of their gender, country or first language), subject material, or methodological approach (Walker & Rocha da Silva, 2015). Some reviewers see the process as an opportunity to push their own research for example, asking authors to cite the reviewer’s own papers. The process of reviewing can stymie innovation by rejecting papers that present methodologies or approaches that are alternative and differ from accepted or mainstream practice. However,","PeriodicalId":51720,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Mental Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/18387357.2021.1985298","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

For Editors, or at least for me, the peer review process can be instructive, helpful and stimulating, but also at times frustrating (I have one paper where I requested 23 reviewers before two reviewers accepted the invitation to review). It can be challenging to find appropriate reviewers and ensure they deliver timely, fair and constructive reports that serve to make the paper stronger, and hopefully not crush the authors’ spirits (too much), even if it is eventually a ‘reject’. Over the course of the pandemic, I have seen an increase in the number of submissions during the pandemic. Others have also commented on the unprecedented volume of research conducted during this time and the subsequent number of papers submitted to journals (Bauchner, Fontanarosa, & Golub, 2020). However, the quality of some COVID-related papers is at times questionable and where the tendency to deliver quick research has come at the expense of rigorous research. For example, of the total number of COVID-related papers submitted to Advances in Mental Health, 70% were rejected without going to review, with others still in review (and so possibly rejected in the long term). This is unfortunate because now more than ever it is critical that we offer timely, evidence-based articles that can be used to influence clinical practice and policy. Simultaneously, I have found it significantly more challenging to find reviewers during the pandemic, and I am not sure why, given the increase in publications. You would hope that as authors submit (and sometimes publish) more, they would review more, though I acknowledge that one does not necessarily follow the other. It could be that the pandemic has created a new field of research in which many do not feel confident to review. Additionally, recent trends suggest that the pandemic has impacted researchers differently, along gendered lines. As a result of stay-at-home orders and increased caring responsibilities, many academic women have struggled to research, resulting in a decreased number of publications by women, even though the proportion of research published by men has increased (Allen et al., 2021). Others have shown that men and women review papers differently (König & Ropers, 2021) but how the pandemic may have impacted peer reviewers along gender lines (including agreeing to review) is not clear. Research might be conducted to examine the proportionate number of women/male reviewers before and during the pandemic to explore this further. Notwithstanding these issues, this editorial serves to champion the many reviewers we call on for Advances in Mental Health, and especially during the pandemic. The peer review process is not without its critics, who point out that the process can result in publication delays and may not always identify errors, fraud or authors’ unethical behaviour. Peer reviewers can also be biased (either consciously or not) towards certain authors (on the basis of their gender, country or first language), subject material, or methodological approach (Walker & Rocha da Silva, 2015). Some reviewers see the process as an opportunity to push their own research for example, asking authors to cite the reviewer’s own papers. The process of reviewing can stymie innovation by rejecting papers that present methodologies or approaches that are alternative and differ from accepted or mainstream practice. However,
在大流行期间支持我们的同行审稿人
对编辑们来说,或者至少对我来说,同行评议过程可能是有益的、有益的、令人兴奋的,但有时也会令人沮丧(我有一篇论文,我邀请了23位评议人,最后才有两位评议人接受了邀请)。找到合适的审稿人,并确保他们提供及时、公平和建设性的报告,使论文更有说服力,并且希望不要摧毁作者的精神(太多),这可能是一项挑战,即使它最终被“拒绝”。在大流行期间,我看到大流行期间提交的材料数量有所增加。其他人也评论了在此期间进行的前所未有的研究数量以及随后提交给期刊的论文数量(Bauchner, Fontanarosa, & Golub, 2020)。然而,一些与新冠病毒有关的论文的质量有时存在问题,而且提供快速研究的趋势是以牺牲严谨研究为代价的。例如,在提交给《精神卫生进展》的与covid相关的论文总数中,70%的论文没有经过审查就被拒绝了,其他论文仍在审查中(因此可能长期被拒绝)。这是不幸的,因为现在比以往任何时候都更重要的是,我们提供及时的、基于证据的文章,可以用来影响临床实践和政策。与此同时,我发现在大流行期间寻找审稿人要困难得多,鉴于出版物的增加,我不确定原因。你可能希望,随着作者提交的文章(有时是发表的文章)越来越多,他们的评论也会越来越多,尽管我承认,两者之间并不一定是相互依存的。可能是大流行创造了一个新的研究领域,许多人没有信心对其进行审查。此外,最近的趋势表明,大流行对研究人员的影响是不同的,按性别划分。由于呆在家里的命令和照顾责任的增加,许多学术女性很难进行研究,导致女性发表的论文数量减少,尽管男性发表的研究比例有所增加(Allen et al., 2021)。其他研究表明,男性和女性审查论文的方式不同(König & Ropers, 2021),但目前尚不清楚大流行如何影响按性别区分的同行审稿人(包括同意审查)。可以开展研究,在大流行之前和期间检查女性/男性审稿人的比例,以进一步探讨这一点。尽管存在这些问题,这篇社论还是为我们呼吁的许多审稿人提供支持,以促进精神卫生方面的进展,特别是在大流行期间。同行评议过程并非没有批评者,他们指出,这一过程可能导致出版延迟,而且可能并不总能发现错误、欺诈或作者的不道德行为。同行审稿人也可能对某些作者(基于他们的性别、国家或第一语言)、主题材料或方法方法(Walker & Rocha da Silva, 2015)有偏见(有意或无意)。一些审稿人认为这个过程是推动他们自己研究的机会,例如,要求作者引用审稿人自己的论文。评审过程可能会阻碍创新,因为它会拒绝那些提出替代方法或方法的论文,这些方法或方法与公认的或主流实践不同。然而,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信