A glimpse inside the world of peer review

Andrea Olive: My research interests are biodiversity conservation policy in Canada and the United States. I focus on species at risk policies and how they interact with landowners to shape conservation on the ground. I am working on a project about governance of working landscapes in Western Canada.

Inès Fache: I’m currently doing my PhD on avian ecophysiology—more specifically on the demographic trends of the snow bunting (Plectrophenax nivalis), an arctic songbird. This species is fascinating because of its cold tolerance and its long-distance migration each year to reach its breeding ground in the Arctic.

I’m mainly working on proving the decline of this bird and its potential causes, focusing on the impact of climate change and the intensification of agriculture in its wintering habitat and their potential effect on the snow bunting physiology.

Andrea Olive: I have been peer reviewing for about 15 years. When I first started as an Assistant Professor, I was asked only once or twice a year to review a manuscript. This was often by the journals that I had published my own work in (as they had my name in their database). Now that I am a Full Professor, I am asked once or twice a month! I have had to become more selective in the journals and papers that I agree to review – ensuring that I am an expert in the field and that the timeframe for the review is workable. I enjoy peer reviewing papers because it is a chance to read new research.

Inès Fache: Thanks to my network, I became aware of the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists Canada. They were advertising the Early-Career Scientist Reviewer Program, and I decided I had nothing to lose and applied. And here I am! As a beginner in writing academic papers, I wanted to gain more experience and knowledge about the whole process, which can be a bit obscure and difficult to understand. Having two points of view (as a writer and as a reviewer) can only be beneficial for my writing abilities.

Andrea Olive: My process is to save a PDF version and read it on a big screen so I can have a word document open alongside the paper. My first read is a quick skim to see the introduction and conclusion and get a sense of the flow (sections) and all the tables, figures, and appendix materials. I then go back to do a careful read. I make line-item notes as I go. I usually read the entire document in one sitting—which can take an hour. Ideally, I prefer to return to the paper the following day and read over my notes and then write a paragraph to the editor expressing my general (high level) thoughts. Then I edit my line item notes so they are legible and understandable.

I always start my comments with a few sentences about what I really liked about the paper. I then provide 2-5 substantive comments (big picture things the author could do to improve or tighten the argument). I provide my line-item comments. And then I end with something encouraging if I am recommending a revise and resubmit (R&R). If I am recommending a rejection, I try to provide some other possible journals for the author to consider after making revisions.

Inès Fache: For now, my process of reviewing a paper is quite simple. I read it in order, and I write down all the questions and remarks that I have as I read along. Some get answered later in the paper and others are useful information to ask the writers in my feedback. Then, once it’s done, I focus on the methods used and the discussion, which I think are the heart of the story told.

Andrea Olive: Time is usually the immediate challenge. Most journals give generous timelines for a task that only takes a few hours…but it can be hard to find a few hours! Reviewing is heavy intellectual lifting and requires concentration. You want to ensure you aren’t in a rush or a bad mood or really tired when sitting down to write comments.

Another challenge is reviewing papers on the margins of your expertise. This can be tricky and requires some transparency. This can take the form of “I am not an expert in X, but I am an expert in Y. And from my perspective, this paper is interesting because it speaks to Y in 1 or 2 ways. However, to really improve the breadth, scope, depth of the argument, the author should consider J and P.” Sometimes I must be upfront that I cannot provide feedback on a certain methodology if I am not familiar with it. But I can still provide commentary on the degree to which the argument was presented, discussed, and concluded.

Inès Fache: I wouldn’t say I’m an experienced reviewer, but for me, as a beginner, I would say the challenge is to focus on the most important information, and not nitpick every little thing that I disagree with.

I find it useful to take a step back and come back later, or to ask for advice around me.

Andrea Olive: I think a good review provides a concise summary of how the reviewer understood the paper and then goes on to provide 2-3 substantive revisions as well as a handful of smaller but important revisions. It is important to be honest but also constructive. It is very easy to be critical of a paper! The key is to provide concrete steps the author could take to improve the paper – even if you do not think it is a good fit for the journal or even if you think the editor should reject the paper in its current form. Leave the author with sound reasoning for your recommendation.

Inès Fache: The way they give their feedback I would say. Writing a paper is time and energy-consuming. You are writing the story of your research, and it’s nice to receive kind comments or even nice remarks about your work. The academic world needs a little bit more kindness.

Andrea Olive: I am not sure anyone does. There are always trade-offs. Reviewing papers is an opportunity to read new research in the field. It can often spur intellectual thought and curiosity. That must be weighed against the time it will take to read and provide comments. I think this is especially true for Assistant Professors who are under more of a time crunch to produce and publish their own research.

Inès Fache: First, you need to be realistic about the time you can give to a review. Saying no to a review can be a key part of the process.

For me, when I need a break or a change of scenery, I like to start the review process at that time. It allows me to read exciting new research and expand my knowledge about a subject. You never know too much!

Andrea Olive: The process is a bit of a black box for early career researchers. I think most academics first encounter with peer review is on the receiving end. When a graduate student submits a paper to a journal, it is often the first time they will get insight into how the entire publishing process works.—and it is very confusing! Predatory journals are a serious issue. There are also different processes across journals. For example, some allow the reviewer to see the author’s name, but the author never knows the reviewer’s name. Other times, both are known. And, perhaps most commonly, neither are known. Thus, I think the student-supervisor relationship is key. MA and PhD supervisors need to help students through the entire process – ideally in the case where the student is the lead author and responsible for submission and response to the reviewers (or at least writing the first draft of a response letter). If researchers come out of graduate school with a few experiences, they are better situated to enter this community.

Inès Fache: I would say this Early Career Scientist Reviewer Program is a really good start! The webinar was super useful, and the process is well-detailed and explained. You can also ask your questions to the editor, and again, don’t be afraid to say if you can’t evaluate certain parts of the paper. Having someone more experienced can help you focus on the important part of the paper and on what you really need to review.

Inès Fache: There is a saying in French that is “ajouter sa pierre à l’édifice”. If I translate it literally, it means to add your stone to the building. This is how I visualize my contribution to science. The strength of the scientific community comes from working all together to try to further the understanding of a subject, even if it’s just adding a little stone to it!