authors, reviewer, and associate editors

[haftka]

As an author, reviewer, and associate editor (AE) for several journals and co-editor of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, I have run into several issues that deserve discussion in our community. In the following, I raise issues and provide the two most extreme reactions I could think of. They do not reflect my views but are presented to stimulate discussion.

1. As authors we are often in the dark about the progress of our paper in the review process. It would be good to correct this.
a. We should be grateful to the service provided by volunteer AEs and reviewers and not ask for more information.
b. The process should be perfectly transparent so that an author would know when reviewers are solicited and be able to see a review as soon as it is submitted.
2. Some researchers who publish a lot refuse to review, or even worse, do not even bother to answer review requests, thereby delaying the review process.
a. We should be grateful for their contribution to the discipline and not bother them with review requests.
b. These are low-life parasites and we should find ways to punish them.
3. Reviewers provide an important service for no compensation. The best reviewers should receive rewards.
a. No. They do have the reward of gaining knowledge from the papers they review, and they must enjoy the power they have if they spend so much time.
b. Yes. The best reviewers should be provided with awards, accelerated publication tracts and recognition on the pages of the journal.
4. Some reviewers take very little time to read papers, are uncivil, or prejudiced.
a. We should be grateful that they take the time to review.
b. The low scores of bad reviewers (given by AEs) should be made public.
5. Some Associate Editors delay greatly the publication process by procrastinating with selecting reviewers or making decisions.
a. This is their privilege. They probably do that for weak papers that deserve to be delayed anyhow.
b. The actions of the AEs should be immediately communicated to authors, so that they can harass AEs when they procrastinate.

[G Allaire]

Dear Rafi,
acting as a referee or an editor is time consuming. I don't think
it needs any reward but I definitely believe that no harassment
should be put on these referees and editors ! The authors can
complain to the editor in chief who, in turn, can put pressure
on the referees or editors if he has good reasons, but in no case
should the authors be allowed to bother directly the reviewers.
Otherwise there will soon be no more valuable referees (finding
them is already hard work as you mentioned).
Best regards,
Gregoire Allaire

[leriche]

* It is now standard that authors know the state of their article submission. They should probably have some sort of hidden email address that redirects their request to the RE in charge of their article. To me, this answers Rafi's items 1 and 5.

* Item 3. Yes, good reviewers and REs should receive some sort of reward (like a citation in the Journal). I would also be favorable to official statements about the reviewing activity, issued by the journal, so that reviewing might become one of the many sides of researching. Such data already exist on sites like manuscript central but I do not know if it is ever used (?).

* Items 2 and 4 : editors choose their REs, REs choose their reviewers. "Bad" REs or reviewers can only exist (I mean for more than one review) if the associated editor or RE accepts it.
I believe this reasonably limits the risk (?).

So, to me, rewarding good reviewers would be the principal improvement to the existing (or soon to exist) review system.

Rodolphe

[maute]

Dear Rafi,

my take on the review process is as follows:

1. Editors, REs: I think that the process SMO has currently implemented provides sufficient transparency. When an RE sends out requests for reviews and when the reviews are returned are of no importance for the author. Delays in the review process should be monitored by the editor-in-chief, not by authors. Furthermore, an RE should be given the flexibility of asking for additional reviews if the original reviews are conflicting or not adequate. It is the responsibility of the RE and editor-in-chief to correctly interpret the reviews and make a decision whether or not the paper is acceptable for publication.

2. Reviewers: The peer review system is one of the fundamental pillars of our academic system, not only for the review process of journals. If authors repeatedly refuse to review papers or substantially delay the review process, in my opinion, this is not only laziness but it undermines our whole system. The same applies to the quality of reviews. For every paper an author submits it can be expected the author reviews about 2-3 papers. Since reviewing papers is an essential service to our academic community, I do think special awards are needed (but for sure awards are alway a nice recognition).

Kurt

[kkchoi]

Rafi:

As an author, reviewer, and AE for several journals, my thoughts on the desirable review process are following:

1. As authors we are often in the dark about the progress of our paper in the review process. It would be good to correct this.

I would not take either of the extreme reactions you described. Many AE¡¯s are doing excellent service work to the community. Thus, it is not necessary to make the process transparent since it may end up burdening AEs. On the other hand, not all AE are the same. Thus the journal Editor should provide the norm of the length of the review process. Then the authors can request the status of the review process if their paper review seemed to take too long, e.g., 1.5 times of the norm.

2. Some researchers who publish a lot refuse to review, or even worse, do not even bother to answer review requests, thereby delaying the review process.

I would rather take strong position on this matter. I do know there are some prolific authors who do not take their share of responsibility. Of course, it is not easy to make a fair way of making them to pay. On the other hand, having reviewers¡¯ names listed on the journal at the end of the year would be good.

3. Reviewers provide an important service for no compensation. The best reviewers should receive rewards.

Again, if their names are listed on the journal at the end of the year, that could be enough recognition.

4. Some reviewers take very little time to read papers, are uncivil, or prejudiced.

AEs should not ask them to review papers. Of course, that could be welcome by those irresponsible reviewers. However, their names will be missing on the list, which may not have an immediate impact. However, in the long run, people will start noticing what is happening.

5. Some Associate Editors delay greatly the publication process by procrastinating with selecting reviewers or making decisions.

It is delicate since there could be no clear evidence that AE is delaying intentionally. However, if we follow my suggestion on No. 1 above, the authors will have chance to ask and Editors should find the reason of delay. That will be enough pressure to AEs.