Personal Classifications | Accepting or Declining an Invitation | Writing Comments Back to the Editor | Reviewing with Trainees | Review Logistics
Personal Classifications
A: There is no minimum or maximum number. However, casting a wide net is not recommended because you might get a paper in the area you are not familiar with. Make sure you are indicating your personal classifications honestly, and that those classifications reflect your interests.
Q. What should I put in the "personal keywords" field?
A: The “personal keywords” section of the registration form was a default setting of Editorial Manager that was not used by AJPE's editors and staff. That section has been deactivated, so it should no longer show up.
Accepting or Declining an Invitation
Q: How can I communicate to an editor that I am open to participating in more reviews?
A: First, make sure you have your personal classifications up to date. Then contact the AJPE editorial office by sending an email to ajpe@ajpe.org indicating that you are open to reviewing more papers. Once the editorial office has been notified, a staff member will notify the editors to invite you to review.
Q: What happens if I decline an invitation to review because it is not in my area of expertise?
A: The decision to accept or decline a review based on an area of expertise is up to you, the reviewer, but we encourage potential reviewers to examine their “personal classifications” closely in their EM profile. Authors select which of these classifications pertain to their manuscript, and reviewers also select which classifications match their expertise areas. Peer reviewing can also be a fantastic opportunity for growth and development, exposing a reviewer to new or emerging areas of education/practice. It’s important to remember that manuscripts should not be only accessible/comprehensible to a person with extensive knowledge in the area, but also able to tell a coherent and understandable story that is widely applicable across pharmacy education. Part of your review can include how broadly applicable the study is to pharmacy education, which is helpful for the editors.
Q: How much time should I allot if I’m deciding whether I should accept or decline the invitation to review especially if I’m a new reviewer?
A: Each journal has a different timeline, and (most importantly) every person is different. For AJPE, reviewers receive 3 weeks to provide a constructive review back to the editor. For a new reviewer, estimating a few days to read and write your review is recommended. As you get more familiar with the peer review process, an estimate might be: 30-60 minutes to initially survey the paper, another 30-60 minutes to write down questions that have been brought up while reading, 1-2 hours to perform any additional background checking/reading (depending on level of expertise) and 1 hour to write a review. If the subject matter of the manuscript is something with which you stay up to date in the literature, then limited additional reading or research would be sufficient. However, if the subject matter is less familiar to you, you may benefit from allowing additional time to pull and compare references to ensure that the conclusions drawn by the authors match your understanding of the subject matter and the literature around that area.
Q: I've been told that editors/journals track how often a reviewer accepts vs. declines an invitation, and subsequently may remove reviewers from their reviewer list. Is it OK to truly decline invitations?
A: Every time a reviewer declines an invitation, it slows the peer review process. If a reviewer keeps declining, this sends a message to the editor that this reviewer is no longer interested in reviewing. Editorial Manager tracks how many invitations vs. accepted/declined and how many invitations have expired or timed out, ie, that 5 days have passed and there was no response received to the invitation. However, there is no official guidance on how to interpret these numbers. In addition, the editors also try to space their invitations of any one reviewer to participate in AJPE’s process, often waiting at least 3 months.
Q: If I decline an invitation to review due to timing/workload, will that reduce my chances of getting future invitations?
A: If you will not be available for certain dates because of timing and/or workload, indicate this information under “update my information” in Editorial Manager. This will save a lot of work and time for the editors and avoid slowing down the peer review process.
Q: What's the threshold for deciding if there's a conflict of interest (COI)?
A: This comes down to your perception and whether this could bias your review in any way. Reviewing a paper written by an author from your own institution is typically considered as COI.
Q: How will I know if I am qualified to review a manuscript when invited to be an ad hoc reviewer?
A: There isn’t an objective assessment to determine if a person is a good candidate or qualified to review a manuscript. However, considering whether one is qualified is not the best question to ask, but rather if someone is willing to put the work in to provide high-quality feedback on the manuscript and how it fits into the overall literature in an area. Reviewing can be a great opportunity to keep up with the literature and what is new and emerging in a field. For papers within your expertise, the review may be faster since you know the area. For papers outside your expertise, the review may require more time to understand the context and the methods.
Writing Comments Back to the Editor
Q: How should I address my comments to the authors (eg, "you should consider XYZ" vs. "the authors should consider XYZ"). Are there any quick tips on what voice I should use?
A: It doesn’t matter very much, but “the authors” or “authors” sounds better than “you” (and less demanding/prescriptive). Remember, the goal is to provide helpful, meaningful feedback, so put yourself in the author’s shoes. Think of how you would like to receive comments on a research project you spent a lot of time and effort doing.
Q: If the manuscript I’m reviewing only includes perception data, should I recommend that it be rejected? Can a measured change in attitudes be differentiated from perception data?
A: Each manuscript should be considered on its own merits. Perception data has a place perhaps as a part of a larger plan but should not be considered the sole source of information related to the efficacy of a given educational intervention. Certainly, surveys of students, faculty, residents, or others may be considered a type of perception data. In those cases, however, the perception of the target audience is the desired outcome. We should strive for the best measures/outcomes for our research, so context is important.
Q. What is your advice for handling areas that I may not be comfortable with, such as statistical methods? Do editors expect reviewers to research the methods/statistics design that the author used on our own to be an effective reviewer?
A: The peer review process can be a learning opportunity for reviewers. It is expected that reviewers do some research; eg, whether the authors cited appropriate literature and whether they tested hypotheses appropriately. For junior faculty or trainees, it’s good to have a mentor involved in the peer review process. Editors do not expect reviewers to be an expert on everything, so we have multiple reviewers involved for each submission.
Q: What is a good rule of thumb to use to differentiate between minor and major revisions needed for a manuscript?
A: A minor revision typically has issues that require the author to fix (so, beyond copy editing and grammar/spelling/syntax correction) but would not require further peer review. Minor revisions typically only require the assigned editor to validate that the recommended changes were made. Alternatively, a major revision is typically substantive and would likely require a second review. In addition, major revision tends to indicate larger issues, such as issues with clarity, methods, results, etc. Papers are more likely to be rejected if issues are not addressable (ie, fatal flaw).
Q. When asked to re-review a manuscript, should I just focus on the revisions I suggested during my first review rather than start looking for other possible changes the author should make?
A: A revision can include significant changes, especially for the second round. The best approach is to read through the manuscript with a fresh pair of eyes and then to look at specific changes made based on the previous comments. It is OK to give new comments for the re-submissions.
Q. What is the process of the re-review? What happens if the recommendation on the re-review is still "major revision," does it become a rejection, or is there no limit to re-reviews?
A. Some journals mandate two rounds of review regardless of paper quality. Having two rounds of review is not necessarily a bad thing. But it’s important to note that all peer reviews serve as advice or a recommendation to the editor on the usefulness and/or widespread applicability of a manuscript. The final decision, however, is in the hands of the assigned editor, and there is no overarching rule about the final disposition of a manuscript based on a certain combination or sequence of review recommendations from the reviewers.
Reviewing with Trainees
Q: When mentoring others on the review process, what is the rule of thumb regarding confidentiality?
A: Many journals employ single- or double-blinded peer review. Your trainees or colleagues also need to follow this blinding process. It’s important for the mentees not to disclose they reviewed which manuscript and the contents.
Q: If I am mentoring a student or resident through the peer-review process, what is the best practice to request a permission to do so? Is it necessary to contact the editor in advance in this case?
A: Peer reviewing can be a great opportunity for mentorship for both students and residents, as well as junior faculty. From the journal’s standpoint, transparency is appreciated. Reviewers can comment back to the editor that a mentee participated in the peer review.
Review Logistics
Q: Do editors usually send revisions back to the same reviewers?
A: Yes, that is usually the case. Depending on the availability of previous reviewers, revisions can be also sent to new reviewers.
Q: How will platforms like MedRxiv influence the peer review process in the future (if at all)?
A: It’s unclear how the explosion of pre-print publishing, particularly in the era of COVID-19 research, will affect traditional publishing models. The pre-print publication model allows a crowd-sourcing of peer review, meaning that more eyes review the manuscript because it is freely available to a wide audience. However, the inherent risk of this model is that retractions or potential withdrawals of manuscripts would be more common. Under the current model, papers with significant methodological issues identified on pre-publication peer review would not be published, preventing the need for retraction but possibly taking longer and with fewer “eyes” able to provide peer review. There are potential benefits and drawbacks to both the current model and the new post-publication review model, but it is not certain now how (or if) the prevailing model will be substantially altered.
Q: If there are two reviewers, how do you handle polarized reviewers? Have you considered doing a 3-reviewer model like some other journals?
A: Two reviewers is the standard for AJPE, but editors often seek a third reviewer if there is inconsistency or disagreement among the reviewers. There is no litmus test or objective standard for the level of disagreement or discord among the reviewers that would prompt seeking a third review; it will differ from editor to editor. The editors read the papers and make a preliminary judgment before looking at reviewers’ comments, so often we serve as the third reviewer in a sense. In cases of polarized comments, we also look at the quality of the review. If one reviewer says accept with no comments to support the recommendation, and the other says reject and provides substantive evidence, then we may follow the data and reject. The reverse may be true as well. As a reviewer, your review helps support or refute your decision.
Q: Does listing my reviews on Publons or similar websites potentially unblind me to the authors?
A: Each website/service is different, so check with them for specifics. However, most of the websites that aggregate review data only take the “metadata” from reviews rather than the specifics (ie, Reviewer X successfully completed four reviews for Journal Y in 2019) vs. the content or specifics of the reviews themselves.
Q: What would be the benefit and risk of enrolling in a reviewer program like Publons?
A: Publons is mainly a peer review tracking service, but offers other services such as “Peer Reviewer Academy” that train individuals on how to provide peer reviews. As far as risk vs. benefit, there isn’t a downside to using a service like Publons to track an individual’s peer reviews. However, any service that requires an investment of time should be evaluated on their own merits to determine if they are worth the time.
Q: How do you know which phase of the review process you are in when being invited to review? Do all journals tell you?
A: This depends on each journal’s policy. If the submission you are reviewing is a revision, it’s likely that you can see previous comments to original submissions and author’s responses addressing to those comments.
Q. Is it appropriate to recommend to the authors and/or editors that a manuscript is better suited as a research brief or some different category?
A: The type of recommendation would only be appropriate in your comments to the editor as opposed to the author, and would need to be supported by evidence or sound reasoning rather than just stated as a recommendation.
Q: Will I get to see the other reviewers' comments?
A: For AJPE, reviewers can see the editorial decision as well as comments from other reviewers.
Q: How do the Journal and reviewers handle suspected plagiarism?
A: Editorial Manager automatically detects any previously submitted manuscript and checks for overlaps, but it does not check with all literature out there. If reviewers notice or suspect plagiarism, they should communicate with the editor to point out their concern(s).
Q: Can I get feedback on my reviews?
A: Reviewers do not receive specific feedback on their reviews. However, looking at comments from other reviewers and how the editors responded back to the authors can give a reviewer an idea how helpful their review was in the overall peer review process.