Understanding the review process
Reviewers
#EditorObservations 14 Reviewers (YouTube, 2m 3s)
Reviewers are the backbone of academic publishing. Yet it is getting harder to secure competent reviewers to assess manuscripts. This is due to the substantially increased time pressure university-based researchers are facing. Today, researchers are not assessed by the brilliance of their ideas anymore. Rather, their performance is being measured by research metrics. Such metrics do not capture the value of their work to knowledge creation, the planet or humanity; they just capture how much work researchers produce that is acceptable enough to get published by a journal. Because there is a focus on quantity, and producing a lot of acceptable work takes time, researchers are not as willing as they used to be to volunteer their time to assess articles other people have written. Also, with the focus on quantity, the number of journal articles being submitted to journals has skyrocketed. More journal submissions translate directly in a higher need for reviewers.
So in a climate characterised by time pressure, publication pressure and employment anxiety, editors-in-chief are particularly grateful to researchers who submit meaningful, competent reviews. Fortunately, many authors acknowledge the contribution of reviewers.
#editorobservation
One of our stellar Annals of Tourism Research Associate Editors alerted a reviewer to the inappropriate tone of their (otherwise excellent) review.
Reviewer sent revised review + nice email.
Stuff up – learn – don’t stuff up next time.
Great strategy.
We’re all human after all.
#editorobservation
Hugely grateful to all scholars who review for Annals of Tourism Research, Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights and other journals.
Reviews vary in helpfulness.
Today we received one that was just an opinion really.
Not so helpful.
Reviewer training needed?
Scott McCabe and I will offer webinar soon.
#editorobservation
Seriously?
Unable to decline a review request in 49 days?
Sure, we are all very busy.
Yet, we want our papers to be reviewed carefully and promptly.
We also must provide careful and prompt reviews.
If we cannot, we must at least decline immediately.
#editorobservation
One of our stellar Annals of Tourism Research Associate Editors came across a review recently that was clearly very competent in content but missed the mark in tone.
She sent a polite email to the reviewer alerting them to this fact & reminding them that it is one of the core values of Annals of Tourism Research to communicate respectfully and professionally.
The reviewer immediately sent a reworded review along with a very nice email to the Associate editor that was absolutely & totally in line with the Annals of Tourism Research spirit.
Witnessing this interaction made me so very happy!
The bottom line is that we are all human. We all overreact sometimes. We all make mistakes. The key is that we can acknowledge them, fix them (if possible) & do our best to not repeat them.
So impressed with both the Associate Editor and reviewer. Scott McCabe & I are truly privileged to have them on the Annals of Tourism Research team.
#editorobservation
Nothing is more rewarding for a journal editor than to see the peer review system work as intended.
We are grateful to authors who take the time to share with us how the Annals of Tourism Research review process has helped them improve their paper, or inspired a future line of inquiry.
#editorobservation
Reviewers are the unsung heroes of academic publishing.
Just saw Annals of Tourism Research “reviews/person” stats for the 1st time.
Absolutely totally blown away by the commitment of our colleagues to peer review.
Some submit 10 high-quality reviews per year.
THANK YOU🥰
#editorobservation
We feel your pain!
As academic researchers, we are constantly being asked to review articles for journals, even if the manuscripts have nothing to do with our expertise 
And sometimes review invitations just come at the worst possible time.
If you can’t help…
#editorobservation
Today one of the wonderful people who volunteer their time to review manuscripts for Annals of Tourism Research (thank you!) reminded me just how confusing the response options are on our online submission system.
Of course, “highest” should be 5 and “lowest” should be 1.
Three observations relating to this:
- Editors-in-Chief have very little input into online submission systems designed by publishers. All we can do it share with the publisher our recommendations for improvement.
- At Annals of Tourism Research, Associate Editors are guided by the verbal assessment of the manuscript, not the scores. In fact, we have tried to remove the recommendation terms (“accept”, “minor revision”, “major revision”, “reject”) from the reviewer interface altogether because it is often more reflective of a reviewers level of generosity than of the potential of the manuscript to be improved.
- This is an excellent example of just how important questionnaire design is. Poorly designed questionnaires do not facilitate knowledge creation. Here are some recommendations on how to ask good survey questions.
