Academics are expected to dedicate much time to reviewing papers for colleagues. They are usually paid very little for this work, which takes them away from their research. Despite this, peer review is widely used to ensure the quality and validity of scientific work. It can also be a valuable tool for advancing one’s career.

The Submission

When scientists have completed a study, they write up their findings and submit them to a resource like the Bentham Science journal specializing in their research area. The editorial team will evaluate the submission to ensure it meets basic requirements, such as appropriate methodology and a clear statement of the study’s aim and conclusions. This initial evaluation, known as pre-submission peer review, can be very long. If your paper is accepted at this stage, the editorial team will work with you to meet all the journal’s requirements. During this phase, the handling editor will check your paper for several things, including grammatical errors and structural issues. They will also mediate any conflicts of interest between you and the reviewers and oversee the revisions that your peers suggest. At the same time, the handling editor will make notes about any issues they think you need to address.

The Editorial Office

When submitting a paper to a journal, the editorial office checks that it adheres to its author guidelines. At this stage, the editorial staff looks at the submission’s suitability for publication and assesses whether it meets scientific standards. It is also common for the editorial staff to check that references are in-text and formatted correctly. They may also look at the logical flow of the paper and assess whether the conclusions are valid. They will also examine any ethical concerns, such as when research involves patients or animals and the rigor of the methodology employed. This is a crucial stage in the process as it can often take up to a year between submission and publication. If the editorial office believes that a paper does not meet the required level of quality, it will reject the manuscript. Some journals have more rigorous criteria for peer review than others, and they will use software to screen for text duplication, require source data and a description of how experiments were carried out, or examine submitted illustrations to check that they have not been manipulated. They may also discuss any concerns with the Editor-in-Chief or the authors.

The Reviewers

Reviewers assess the work’s worthiness for publication in a peer review journal like Bentham Open. They may accept the paper with revisions, suggest changes, or recommend rejecting it. The editorial office usually vets reviewers for their expertise and availability. This vetting can include background checks, training, affiliations, and other factors. Reviewers are typically asked to provide feedback on the structure of the manuscript, the quality of research sources and methods, the logical flow of the paper, and the validity of conclusions drawn. In addition, they may address language and grammatical issues. Despite all of its merits, peer review could be better. Scientists are human and can miss critical information or have biases that lead to dubious research being published. This can be a particular problem with newer online-only/electronic journals that often skip the review process altogether, leaving unvetted research out in the scientific community. Suggesting reviewers can also be prone to bias, with scientists tempted to suggest their peers who will look favorably at the work they have submitted.

The Handling Editor

The handling editor is the person who sends invitations to reviewers and keeps track of the reviewing process. They ensure the reviewers are qualified to evaluate the paper based on their experience, expertise, availability, and conflicts of interest. They also ensure that the reviewers can adequately cover all aspects of the research, from practical laboratory-based experiments to high-level theoretical work. The reviewers examine the manuscript and assess whether it meets the editorial criteria for publication. They can recommend acceptance (with or without revisions) or reject it. Sometimes, the editor may choose only to publish a paper if it is judged high quality or relevant. Scientific peer review is vital for scientific journals but can be difficult and time-consuming. Some argue that it discourages scientists from pursuing innovative and bold research ideas, as they fear that such work will be rejected through peer review.