Embedded Files
Peer review is an essential part of ensuring that manuscripts are published based on their merit and relevance. The main challenges of managing the peer review process are (1) identifying a sufficient number of suitable peer reviewers, (2) obtaining enough accepted invitations from peer reviewers, (3) obtaining prompt and competent peer reviews, and (4) synthesizing peer reviews into effective recommendations for the authors to help them quickly and effectively improve their manuscript during the revision process.
Identifying suitable peer reviewers
Identifying suitable peer reviewers
Use science networking sites like ResearchGate and Google Scholar to identify collaborative networks (and potential conflicts of interest). Use the manuscripts’ reference list as a starting point to identify potential reviewers.
Consistent with ICB’s commitment to inclusion and equity, please ensure reviewer diversity in gender, geography (of their affiliation), academic age, and status.
To avoid conflicts of interest, do not recommend recent collaborators, mentees, or PhD mentors of the authors. Follow NSF or NIH guidelines for conflict of interest. When in doubt, consult with the Editor or Associate Editor assigned to the manuscript. Reviewers should not be Assistant Editors, Associate Editors, or Editors at ICB.
Tips from the Managing editor
Please input the pre-agreed reviewers!
The managing editor recruits peer reviewers ahead of the SICB annual meeting. Please input these those reviewers in the list of reviewers to be invited in ScholarOne, along with any additional reviewers you would like to invite.
You can find the names of pre-agreed reviewers in your personal grid to the right of the authors' names and manuscript number.
refer to our sibling journal, IOB's reviewer bank
and our ICB reviewer bank and utilize this site for choosing diverse reviewers
Obtaining competent and timely reviews
Obtaining competent and timely reviews
Without personalized invitations, typically only 20 to 30% of the invitations are accepted. To personalize invitations, the email invite might contain personalized statements addressing the potential reviewer personally, such as
explaining why they are particularly suited to review this manuscript (such as relevant expertise, a recent publication on a topic relevant to the manuscript you are inviting them to review)
explaining what you want the reviewer to focus on in the manuscript; this is especially relevant for cross-disciplinary manuscripts to assure reviewers that you are aware that they might not feel equally competent about each aspect of the manuscript
emphasizing shared values, stating that this invitation results from ICB seeking out peer reviewers who share ICB's commitment to an equitable and inclusive peer review process
emphasizing that peer review is a professional development opportunity for early-career scholars to engage with the editorial process
To personalize the invitation, you can either reach out to the potential peer reviewer directly with an informal invitation (consider cc-ing the Managing Editor), or by sharing draft text or information with the Managing Editor to use in the formal invitation.
If you are handling a symposium manuscript and were able to attend the talk, consider headhunting peer reviewers among the audience, focusing on audience members that engaged with the speaker while remaining mindful of potential conflicts of interest (collaborators of the speaker will often attend the talk and ask questions).
Reducing the need for multiple revisions
Reducing the need for multiple revisions
Help the authors revise their manuscript effectively and quickly by prioritizing peer review queries. In your recommendation to the editor,
resolve contradictory comments by making a concrete recommendation that helps the authors to address the underlying issue
emphasize comments that you disagree with and make a recommendation that helps the authors avoid counter-productive revisions to their manuscript
point out explicitly all go/no-go recommendations that the authors must implement fully in order for the manuscript to be accepted, and explain concrete and actionable steps to help authors implement those recommendations effectively
Creating an inclusive peer review experience
Creating an inclusive peer review experience
Help make the peer review process a positive experience for our authors by helping the associate editor redact counterproductive and unprofessional comments. In your recommendation to the editor,
point out any counterproductive comments that need to be put into a constructive context in the decision letter
if any of these comments have scientific merit, please suggest language that the associate editor can include in their letter to the authors to share any useful aspects of the redacted comments in the guise of comments by the editor
rescind offensive and unprofessional reviews. ICB does not redact peer reviews because peer reviews are original scholarly work. If you rescind a review, please include all valuable content of the review in your recommendation to the AE, so thee decision letter can include those comments as a way of sharing them with the authors
Frequently encountered troubles with peer reviews
Frequently encountered troubles with peer reviews
More tips on peer review challenges such as
The reviewers make recommendations that contradict each other
The reviewers come to very different overall assessments
The review is unhelpful
The review is unprofessional
Page updated
Report abuse