Understanding the Role of Peer Review

Anonymous peer review is a perfect occasion for academic bullies to belittle colleagues. Unfortunately, no one talks about it. When academics wish to publish their articles in scientific journals, they must navigate a process that involves: 1. Submitting their article through a portal. 2. An editor reads the article to determine if it is a suitable fit or good enough to be sent to peer reviewers, who are experts in the field. 3. The article is either rejected by the editor (a desk rejection) or sent to three experts who will review it anonymously (only the editor knows the reviewers; their names will be removed when their reviews are sent to the article's author). 4. Reviewers read the article and decide whether it should be 1) accepted as is (this rarely occurs), 2) revised and allowed to be resubmitted (commonly referred to as revise and resubmit or R & R), or 3) rejected. 5. The editor receives the three reviews and makes a final decision on the article. 6. The author receives the editor's decision and the anonymous reviewers' comments. Professors operate within a publish-or-perish work culture. Some universities require their professors to produce a certain number of publications each year. Publications lead to obtaining research grants and tenure. Therefore, the peer-review process is almost never contested by authors, giving reviewers and editors much power in their roles. Behind every article are years of writing research projects, collecting data, supervising students, discussing with colleagues, reviewing the literature, and analyzing data. Submitting one's work for evaluation is a stressful process that leaves authors vulnerable to the feedback provided by reviewers. While some reviewers view their role as assisting science and scientists, others perceive it as an opportunity to belittle others, take a political stance, promote their personal agenda, and openly attack the author and their work. Let me be clear, tough reviews are not easy to receive. However, there is a difference between being critical while making suggestions for improvement and attacking someone. I have had multiple discussions over the years with colleagues and my students about "nasty" reviews. No one dares to talk about the psychological impact of receiving these "nasty" comments. Many people feel discouraged, hurt, anxious, and angry; some may even question the relevance of their work and their abilities as researchers. "It's part of the game" is something we hear often. It should not be. Bullying is bullying, no matter where it happens. Behind the article lies an academic, a person. Reviews matter. They provide much-needed feedback to help us grow as academics. However, when the feedback is aggressive and belittling, it serves no one. Anonymous peer reviews are an integral part of an academic career. It should be a safe space where ideas are challenged healthily and respectfully. Take care of yourself and the people around you 💗

🔍 The Truth About Peer Reviews in Engineering In many projects, clients seek a second opinion when they’re unhappy with the advice of their engineer. That’s fair—but too often, this becomes a case of: “The second opinion suits me better, so it must be right.” Let’s clarify something important: a legitimate peer review is not just a more favourable opinion. It’s a structured, ethical process governed by the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) and most professional bodies globally. ✅ A proper peer review must: 1. Be done by a registered professional in the same field. 2. Be disclosed to the original engineer unless exempt (e.g., legal proceedings). 3. Evaluate whether the original engineer acted with skill, care, and diligence—not whether someone else would have done it differently. ECSA’s Code of Conduct even prohibits engineers from reviewing another’s work unless specific conditions are met, such as: 1. Prior notification, 2. Formal termination of the original appointment, 3. Or the context of a dispute or statutory requirement. Clients sometimes assume the second opinion is automatically “correct” because it sounds better or cheaper. But engineering is full of nuanced judgment calls based on evolving or imperfect data. Two professionals may reach different—but still valid—conclusions. Example: A project like a shopping mall starts construction with not even half the spaces having tenants. The systems installed thus have to allow for a lot of unforeseens. By the time there are tenants, it might certainly seems like there are better solutions for the purpose - if you do not take the history into account. 💡 The core question is not who said what, but whether the original advice met the standards of the profession. That’s what a peer review must establish. Let’s keep the profession accountable—but also fair. #EngineeringEthics #PeerReview #ECSA #ProfessionalPractice #EngineeringStandards #ProjectManagement #BuiltEnvironment #ConsultingEngineers #EngineeringIntegrity #KoosUys

Today I’m starting a short series called “Notes from an Associate Editor” (#NotesFromAnAssociateEditor), sharing reflections on how scientific publishing actually works (at least from my own experience). 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗘𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 #01 Many researchers imagine that editors simply accept or reject papers. In reality, the role is much more complex. Editors act as “connectors” between authors, reviewers, and the scientific community. We evaluate whether a manuscript fits the journal scope, identify appropriate reviewers, interpret sometimes conflicting reviews (yes! they exist, and in great numbers!), and ensure that the final decision reflects both scientific rigor and fairness. Most of this work happens quietly and anonymously, and it is a day-by-day activity. A very important detail is that a well-functioning editorial process depends on trust between all participants in the system. For authors, a few things help enormously: • submit manuscripts that clearly state their research contribution • make data and methods publicly accessible • respond constructively to reviewer comments Peer review is not perfect, but it remains one of the most important mechanisms we have to maintain scientific quality. In my view, one of the main tasks for an editor at the very beginning of the process is to ensure that the blind part of peer review (where authors do not know who the reviewers are) does not contain hidden conflicts of interest. In practice, this often involves conducting a careful search on the academic background and publication history of both authors and reviewers. The journal submission system helps a lot. But since starting in this position last year, I have also been developing my own tools to search deeper and give me greater confidence in my editorial decisions. What part of the peer review process do you think researchers understand the least? #PeerReview #NotesFromAnAssociateEditor #AcademicPublishing #OpenScience #ResearchIntegrity Note: the sketch in the figure was generated with AI based on my own notes about the editorial workflow.

🎓✍️ Dear PhD Scholar: Understanding the Peer Review Process- Step-by-Step Breakdown with Tips 1. Manuscript Submission 📌 What Happens: Author submits the manuscript via the journal’s online system. #Tips:Ensure your manuscript matches the journal’s scope and formatting guidelines. Include a clear cover letter summarizing your key findings. 2. Editorial Screening (Desk Review) 📌 What Happens: Editor checks for fit, novelty, and basic quality before peer review. #Tips: Avoid desk rejection by highlighting why your study matters in the abstract and introduction. Fix language and structure issues before submission. 3. Assignment to Reviewers 📌 What Happens: Editor invites 2–3 reviewers who are experts in the field. #Tips: Suggest potential reviewers (with no conflicts of interest) in your cover letter. Reviewers are often chosen from references you cite, so cite wisely. 4. Peer Review Process 📌 What Happens: Reviewers evaluate your manuscript for scientific quality, originality, clarity, and relevance. #Tips: Peer review may be single-blind, double-blind, or open — know which type the journal uses. Be prepared for constructive criticism — it’s normal, not personal. 5. Editorial Decision (Accept / Revise / Reject) 📌 What Happens: Editor decides based on reviewer feedback. #Tips: A “Revise and Resubmit” (R&R) is positive — use reviewer comments to improve your paper. If rejected, don’t despair. Many great papers are revised multiple times or published elsewhere. 6. Author Revisions 📌 What Happens: Authors revise the manuscript and respond to reviewer comments. #Tips: Be polite and thorough in your response letter. Use a point-by-point reply format addressing each comment. 7. Re-Review (if required) 📌 What Happens: Revised manuscript may be sent to original reviewers or new ones. #Tips: If the editor handles the decision without new review, they are checking if you followed advice well. Stay transparent if you disagree with a reviewer (justify scientifically and respectfully). 8. Final Decision 📌 What Happens: The editor sends a final verdict: Accept, Minor Revisions, or Reject. #Tips: Celebrate if accepted! If minor issues remain, respond quickly and carefully. 9. Production & Publication 📌 What Happens: Your accepted paper goes through proofing, typesetting, and publishing. #Tips: Carefully check proofs for errors — especially names, figures, and data. Promote your work post-publication via research networks, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google Scholar. 👉Read recent articles from your target journal to align with their tone and standards. 👉Keep a submission tracker with dates, status, and next actions. 👉 Use tools like Publons to track your own peer reviews and build your reviewer profile. 😊Happy Researching & Best of Luck, Future Scholars! 👍 #PhD #Research #publication #Journal #PostdocLife #PhDSkills #ThesisWriting #AcademicMentorship #ResearchTips #LinkedIn #Academic

Most researchers are trained to write papers. Very few are trained to respond to reviewers. After months of work, your manuscript comes back with pages of comments. Some are insightful. Others are contradictory, vague, or simply wrong. Here is the uncomfortable reality of peer review today: 👉 Not all reviewer comments are equally valid 👉 Editors do not always filter or synthesize feedback 👉 Some reviews reflect misunderstanding rather than scientific critique 👉 Authors are increasingly left alone to interpret and respond strategically. Yet many researchers still treat every comment as an absolute truth. That is a mistake. In this video, I explain how to approach reviewer comments analytically, not emotionally. 🎥 Watch the video: 👉 https://lnkd.in/dSdkU_fq 🔍 What many researchers misunderstand about reviewer comments • Not all comments require compliance • Some comments reflect scope drift or misalignment with the journal • Disagreement is legitimate if justified scientifically • The goal is not to satisfy reviewers, but to strengthen the paper 🎯 What this video explains This episode breaks down how to navigate reviewer feedback as a strategic process: • how to distinguish valid critique from weak or irrelevant comments • how to structure a clear and convincing response letter • how to handle conflicting reviewer opinions • how to disagree without sounding defensive • how to protect the integrity and positioning of your research. 🧠 Key insight Peer review is not a neutral or perfectly moderated process. It is an imperfect system where authors must take an active role. Strong researchers do not just revise papers. They interpret, filter, and respond with strategy. 📚 Part of the playlist: Reviewers & Editors: Roles and Responsibilities 🎥 Watch the video: 👉 https://lnkd.in/dSdkU_fq 📚 Learn more about our research https://www.sbd.uliege.be/ 💻 Subscribe to my newsletter https://lnkd.in/diTVT5eq 🅱️ Bilibili b23.tv/bzjL3bn 🎬 YouTube https://lnkd.in/erHrfkNf 🌐 Explore previous posts and resources https://www.shadyattia.org 🔗 Follow all my professional links, including WeChat 🟩💬 微信 https://lnkd.in/eN3xZhhZ 💬 Have you ever disagreed with a reviewer? How did you handle it? #AcademicPublishing #PeerReview #PhDlife #ResearchStrategy #ScientificWriting #EarlyCareerResearchers #PostdocLife #PublishOrPerish #ReviewerComments #ResearchCareer

The first time I was invited to review for a highly prestigious journal, I panicked a little. I was in my third year of PhD. So I did what many of us do when we don’t want to get things wrong: I read several strong papers on peer review, I watched trainings on the Elsevier Research Academy, I studied how top reviews were structured, I spoke to my supervisor for guidance and I approached the manuscript meticulously. A few weeks later, I received a recognized reviewer badge🎉. Then another invitation came from the same journal a few months later. And then I realized something uncomfortable. I had forgotten the exact process I used the first time. So I had to start again – re-reading guidance documents, revisiting best practices and reconstructing my approach. It was time-consuming. That’s when I decided to create a clear, step-by-step peer review guide that I could use every single time. I’ve been using it ever since. I know there is no single “correct” way to review a paper. But this guide is built on the structured approaches used by high-quality reviewers, including recipients of Excellent Reviewer awards across disciplines. I believe it can help PhD students, first-time reviewers, early-career researchers and anyone who wants to produce rigorous, fair, and impactful reviews. And here’s something I wish someone had emphasized earlier: Reviewing is not just service, it is professional development. When done well, peer review helps you to sharpen your critical thinking, recognize methodological weaknesses faster, improve your own manuscript writing, understand what editors value and build credibility in your field. Here’s the core structure I follow: 👉 Before accepting to review, ask yourself: ✔ Do I have the right expertise? ✔ Do I have enough time? ✔ Are there any conflicts of interest? ✔ Can I maintain confidentiality? 👉 During the review (Read more than once): 1️ First read – Big picture What is the research question? Why does it matter? Is it publishable in principle? 2️ Second read – Deep evaluation Are the methods sound? Is the data sufficient? Are the conclusions supported? Also evaluate rigor, ethics, clarity and structure. Clearly separate major vs minor issues. 👉 When writing your review: ✔️ Short summary and overall assessment ✔️ Major issues (publishability-level problems) ✔️ Minor issues (improvement suggestions) ✔️ Clear, aligned recommendation Peer review is not just gatekeeping. It’s stewardship of science. A good review is rigorous, fair, constructive, specific, evidence-based and respectful. I’ve attached the full step-by-step guide to the post. I hope it supports your next review invitation. If you’re an experienced reviewer, what advice would you give someone reviewing for the first time? If you just received your first review invitation today, what would help you feel confident to begin? #EmpoweringEarlyCareerProfessionals #PeerReview #PhDLife #EarlyCareerResearcher #AcademicLife #ResearchIntegrity

Peer reviewing is a voluntary task, but it’s also one of the most critical responsibilities in academia. It requires time, expertise, care, and a strong sense of academic integrity. And yet, very few of us were ever formally trained for it. We often learn by doing—or by watching others—frequently under pressure and without much guidance. Some of my PhD students are now receiving their first invitations to review papers—a major milestone in their academic journey! But naturally, they're unsure where to start. So, what do I recommend they keep in mind when stepping into this role? ✅ 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘂𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗲 Before diving into the review, understand the manuscript's type and check the journal’s specific guidelines for that category. This will help you apply the appropriate evaluation criteria. ✅ 𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 (𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲) 𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗲 Feedback should be direct, respectful, and aimed at helping the authors improve their work. Even when identifying significant flaws, your tone should remain collegial—remember, you're offering support, not judgment. Talk to the authors in the same way you would like a reviewer to talk to you when the paper under evaluation is yours! ✅ 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 Don't get overly focused on grammatical issues. Your role is to assess ideas, methodology, overall clarity, logic, and contributions. ✅ 𝗢𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 Use headings or bullet points to separate your feedback into major comments (e.g., theoretical gaps, methodological concerns) and minor comments (e.g., missing references, formatting issues). This structure helps authors understand your review more easily. ✅ 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘆 Don’t rush through a review, but also avoid perfectionism. Aim for a thorough yet timely response—delayed reviews stall the entire publication process. Personally, I always write a draft and then wait a day or two before revisiting it. Coming back with a fresh perspective helps me refine my comments. ✅ 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 If the paper is outside your expertise, or you’re unable to review it within the requested time frame, it’s best to decline. The integrity of the review process depends on the match between reviewers and subject matter. ✅ 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 Ask yourself: Does this manuscript make a meaningful contribution to the field, from a theoretical perspective and in managerial, practical, and/or policy terms? Sometimes a messy draft still holds valuable insights that are worth refining. 👇 [The list continues in the comments] #PeerReview #AcademicPublishing #PhDLife #EarlyCareerResearchers #AcademicTips #ResearchCommunity #Reviewers #ScholarlyPublishing #ResponsibleResearch #ReviewerGuidance #AcademicSupport #PublishingAdvice

Are you reviewing a research paper for the first time? 🤔 Peer review is the backbone of academic publishing, ensuring the quality and credibility of research. A well-structured review improves a manuscript and strengthens your critical evaluation skills. However, not all feedback is helpful! Let's see the difference between constructive and destructive comments: ❌ Destructive feedback: "This paper is terrible and not worth publishing." "Your methodology is wrong. Redo the entire study." ✅ Constructive feedback: “The study lacks clarity in its objectives. Consider explicitly stating them in the introduction.” “The statistical analysis could be improved by including confidence intervals for better precision.” Providing clear, actionable suggestions makes a difference! Let's examine the key steps to conduct an effective peer review. 1. Assess the invitation carefully: - Ensure the manuscript aligns with your area of expertise before accepting. - Confirm that you have sufficient time to provide a detailed and timely review. 2. Understand the journal's guidelines: - Familiarize yourself with the journal's scope, formatting, and expectations. - Identify whether it follows single-blind, double-blind, or open peer review. 3. Conduct an initial read-through: - Read the paper first without making notes to get an overall impression. - Identify major strengths, weaknesses, and ethical concerns. 4. Evaluate the research question & significance: - Evaluate whether the study addresses a significant research gap. - Verify that the hypothesis is clear, well-justified, and relevant. 5. Assess the methodology & data: - Ensure the study design, sample size, and analysis methods are appropriate. Verify that the methodology is sufficiently detailed to ensure reproducibility. 6. Analyze the results & interpretation: - Verify whether the findings are backed by data and not overstated. - Identify biases, inconsistencies, or unsupported claims. 7. Review the clarity & organization: - Ensure the writing is clear, concise, and logically structured. - Identify areas where explanations or transitions need improvement. 8. Check citations & ethical compliance: - Confirm all sources are credible, properly cited, and up to date. - Identify any issues related to plagiarism, conflicts of interest, or self-citations. 9. Write a constructive & balanced review: - Provide specific feedback with actionable suggestions for improvement. - Maintain a respectful, objective, and professional tone. 10. Submit your review on time: - Structure your review clearly and prioritize major concerns first. - Double-check for clarity, professionalism, and grammatical accuracy. Bonus takeaway: Recommend acceptance, minor/major revisions, or rejection with clear reasoning. 🔍 Peer reviewing is a skill that improves with practice. How do you approach reviewing a research paper? Share your thoughts! 👇🔥

Would you like to become a Peer Reviewer? Below is a comprehensive guide for PhD students and early-career researchers to become one. If you are a PhD student or early career researcher, one of the powerful ways to grow fast in your field is to be a peer reviewer. Why? Peer reviewing sharpens your critical thinking, helps you stay updated with the latest research in your domain, and builds your credibility in the academic world. It also shows journal editors, senior colleagues and researchers that you are serious about contributing to your field, not just publishing in it. So, how do you get started? I have detailed a simple roadmap based on my personal experience and insights from Elsevier’s Certified Peer Reviewer course. From January to present, I have reviewed over 10 manuscripts for top-tier journals covering sustainable aviation fuels, biofuels and renewable energy. 1. Understand What Peer Review Means. Peer review is beyond spotting typos or checking references in manuscripts. It’s a responsibility. When you review a paper, you are acting as a gatekeeper for your field. Your goal is to help editors decide whether a manuscript should be published, revised, or rejected and to give the authors constructive feedback they can use to improve. It’s not about being harsh. It’s about being honest, fair, and helpful. 2. Build Your Profile So Journal Editors Can Find You. You don’t need to wait until you're a tenured professor to review papers. Many journals are open to early-career reviewers, especially if your research aligns with the submission topic. Here is how to boost your chances of being invited: a. Publish: Even one or two papers in a reputable journal can put you on an editor’s radar. b. Make yourself visible: Keep your ORCID, Publons (Web of Science Reviewer Profile), and LinkedIn updated. c. Network: Let your supervisor or senior colleagues know you are interested in being a reviewer. Editors often ask them to recommend reviewers. d. Take the training: Completing Elsevier’s Certified Peer Reviewer Course is a smart move. It shows editors you are serious and trained. 3. Say Yes to That First Invitation Once you are invited by a journal editor, accept if the topic matches your expertise and you have time to do a proper job. A rushed or careless review can hurt your reputation. Reviewers usually get 2–4 weeks to complete a report. If you are unsure about accepting, ask yourself these questions: - Do I understand the core topic? - Can I give this the time it deserves? - Do I have any conflicts of interest? 4. Follow the 5 Stages of Peer Review According to Elsevier, peer reviewing typically follows these stages: - Stage 1: Invitation You will receive an email from the editor asking you to review a paper. Accept or decline promptly. - Stage 2: Evaluation Read the paper carefully. Make notes. Ask: Is the research question clear? Is the methodology sound? Are the results convincing? Continue in the comments (Very important)

Peer review can sometimes feel like an unpredictable journey. We've all seen those humorous images comparing an initial manuscript to its post-review version - a sleek car turning into a bizarre Frankenstein vehicle or a tree suddenly bearing a mix of random fruits (if you haven’t, take a look; I attached a few of my favorites). While these images are funny, they highlight a real challenge: how much a manuscript can change through the review process.   One common misconception I once had (and many researchers still have) is that the goal of peer review is to convince the reviewers. In reality, the key is to convince the editor. This distinction is crucial, especially when handling unreasonable or misguided reviewer comments.   The confidential letter to the editor is a critical yet often overlooked tool in this process. Many authors leave this section blank, but I strongly recommend using it whenever review comments raise concerns. For example: - If a reviewer insists on citing multiple irrelevant papers, take a closer look - there’s a high chance they come from the same research group or contain overlapping authors. In your response to reviewers, politely explain why these citations are inappropriate. However, in the letter to the editor, explicitly state, e.g., "Reviewer X required me to cite seven papers, all of which contain three identical authors, and none are relevant to my study. These papers focus on metallurgy, while my work is on polymer materials." This transparency allows the editor to make an informed decision and can protect your manuscript from unjustified rejection. - If a reviewer provides vague, overly general feedback (a growing issue, potentially linked to AI-generated reviews), it's worth pointing this out to the editor. Highlight that the comments lack specificity or suggest revisions that do not align with scientific publishing standards.   Not all critical reviews stem from bias or bad intentions - sometimes, they result from misunderstanding. In these cases, the best approach is not to mindlessly implement suggested changes but to clarify the unclear sections of the manuscript. A well-crafted response could be: "We appreciate the reviewer’s comment, which made us realize that a key point in our study was not clearly presented. We have now revised the text to improve clarity. However, the specific change suggested by the reviewer does not apply in this context, so we have not implemented it." This approach acknowledges the reviewer's input while maintaining scientific integrity.   The takeaway? Don't let peer review turn your work into an unrecognizable mess (don’t let them massacre your boy!). Engage with the process strategically, use the confidential letter to the editor when needed, and remember: the goal is not to satisfy every reviewer—it’s to ensure your manuscript remains scientifically sound and reaches publication in its best possible form.