Abstract
In the article that follows, Eric Tsang reflects on his experiences with peer-review paper submissions and identifies what he sees as a flaw in the process. To be clear, Tsang acknowledges the vital gate-keeping purpose of peer review. He does not propose eliminating the practice of peer review, just a slight adjustment. In his assessment, when an author is writing on a specialized topic that few explore, typical peer review can fall short in properly evaluating and developing a manuscript. A potential solution is offered. See what you think about his proposal.
Now that I am on the editorial side of the review process, I realize how difficult it is to find appropriate reviewers for any manuscript. I have also noticed over the years that less sophisticated reviewers tend to focus most of their efforts on method flaws. Maybe it’s just me, but I have yet to see a perfect study. So, I prefer to see reviews focus on what is possible to learn from the piece of research and whether those lessons advance theory and practice. Yes, that does require not only some topical expertise but also the ability to identify holes in a story (including methods) that suggest where elaborations are needed or conclusions altered.
I am hoping this article stimulates a larger conversation about what constitutes appropriate peer review and how appropriate reviewers should be recruited. I offer a few contextual issues to consider. First, we have a supply-and-demand issue. There are many journals seeking reviewers and the best reviewers are overwhelmed by requests. The Academy and PhD programs offer workshops in reviewing but frankly, this is a skill that needs practice. Another point, do we know whether specialized fields are disadvantaged? I don’t, but they could be. Also, authors of new knowledge or new perspectives will by definition have no peers. However, aren’t new knowledge and new perspectives exactly what we want to publish? How can we ensure that the peer-review process is advancing meaningful knowledge and perspectives when most of us have narrow perspectives and limited areas of expertise? Let me know your thoughts.