The path an article follows through the publication process is well known to all authors. Basically, the article arrives at a journal and the editor assesses whether or not it meets the requirements. If the editor considers that the article is suitable for the journal in question, it will go through the peer-review process.
It seems like a very simple process, but there is often an imbalance between what
authors and reviewers expect from the whole process.
Today we talk about the needs that are usually shown in both cases and some suggestions to make this whole process better for both of them.
What Authors Seek
Authors rank publishing their article as quickly as possible as the third most important factor in the publication process after impact and journal reach. The speed of publication directly affects the awareness of an article; the sooner it is published, the more citations it receives and the greater the awareness of the article.
A survey conducted showed that 43% of respondents would like to see their work published in less than 3 months, and 70% in less than 6 months.
This is directly linked to the general dissatisfaction of the authors with the peer-review process. Although it is considered a necessary process for publication, most authors are unhappy with the slowness of the process.
What Reviewers Think
On the other hand, reviewers do not consider speed in the process the most important factor. Most reviewers are also academics with busy work lives, who have to spend several hours of their time reviewing, and, in most cases, do not receive compensation for this.
Although many of them claim to return reviews within the time limit, many others are forced to refuse to perform a peer review due to a lack of time to do so.
Why is this process perceived so differently by some and by others? Most authors also share the role of reviewer, so it is also surprising that they do not know that the review process takes much longer than might expect.
Perhaps this disagreement may be due to the lack of transparency in the review process from the author's point of view. While the reviewer knows where the article is in the review process, the author often only receives the message "under review" without knowing for sure whether the article has advanced in the process or whether it has not yet begun.
What Can Be Done?
Precisely, this last one, emphasizes that one of the options would be to be more transparent with the review process, notifying the author at what stage of the review process his or her work is at. Communicating dates and the status of the review can help the author feel more at ease with the deadlines. Here the editor's role as moderator of both parties becomes very important. If the communication is not effective, this can lead to many misunderstandings in the process and make it difficult for authors and reviewers to understand each other's situation.
Search for reviewers more widely. The expansion due to Open Science has caused many more countries to expand in the field of publications as well. Adapting the search for reviewers and searching in other countries can make more people willing to review, making the search for editors easier and the review faster.
Training for reviewers remains an option, although it would still be necessary to deal with the lack of time for those willing to review.
Incentivizing the work of reviewers may also be an alternative. In the end, it is a task that takes a lot of investment of work and time, and most of the time it is not rewarded. It is normal then, that many people reject doing reviews, not only because of lack of time but also because of a lack of recognition for the work they do.
Orvium Adapts to Your Needs
Making the entire publishing process suit everyone involved can be a difficult task. The process may be perceived in different ways depending on the person involved and changing the way it is done may not benefit everyone.
At Orvium we adapt to the needs that each of the involved ones may have.
- As an author, you can publish your preprints, making the publication process faster and increasing the reach of your work.
- As an editor, you can handle the entire publication process and contact different reviewers, a task that can often be difficult.
- As a reviewer, you can enhance your professional profile and receive
recognition and incentives for your work.