Peer review tips for editors

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.

The managing ed, will note any reviewers who have agreed via pre queries prior to the annual conference, to the right of the authors names and manuscript number on your personal grid***Please input those along with any others. 

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 to the reviewer what you want them 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

• emphasize shared values, such as explaining ICB's commitment to an equitable and inclusive peer review process, and our commitment to inviting peer reviewers that share those values

• emphasize that peer review can be 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).

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 redacted

• 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