On Gratitude,Service,and Peer Review

With this issue of the Journal of Music Teacher Education (JMTE), four Editorial Review Board members complete their terms. As a profession we owe Gail Barnes, Colleen Conway, Debra Hedden, and Katia Madsen our thanks and gratitude. They have served for many years as peer reviewers for all our manuscripts.

With this issue we also welcome four new members to the JMTE Editorial Review Board. There are nine board members, each serving 6-year terms, with three rotating off the board every 2 years. Occasionally, as was the case this time, we also select an additional new member to complete an unexpired review board term. The process is long and involves the approval of many peers. A call for nominations is published soliciting qualified nominees. Nominees forward a letter of intent, their curriculum vitae, and a letter of nomination from a nationally recognized individual in music teacher education. The JMTE editor and current editorial review board members individually review each applicant’s materials, collectively discuss all applications at the JMTE Review Board meeting just prior to the NAfME Biennial Convention, and finally agree on a ranking of nominees. The ranked list is presented to the Executive Board of the Society of Music Teacher Education. They approve (or revise) the rankings and forward it to the NAfME National Executive Board for final approval (or revision). This time there were 25 nominations for four spots, and as the rigorous process requires, multiple committees scrutinized each nomination, focusing on the nominees’ publication records, involvement in music teacher education, and likelihood of being a capable reviewer. It is a highly competitive process, and nominees, nominators and current board members are to be congratulated for their service. Please take time to peruse the new review board listed under “Editorial Board” on the JMTE web page.

Given the importance of peer review, we should be extremely grateful that members of our profession are willing to make long-term commitments to maintaining and improving the quality of manuscripts published in JMTE. Reviewers, both current and retiring, from all our journals commit to examining, editing, considering, revising, and evaluating each article. In the case of JMTE, about two thirds of submissions are rejected, but that happens only after careful consideration and evaluation. Writing a rationale for why an article might be accepted, revised, or rejected is a complicated and time-consuming process, but it appears that JMTE reviewers have demonstrated a vigilance to a manuscript’s applicability to both teacher preparation and quality scholarship. We want them to maintain these high standards. It is good for our journal, and ultimately good for our entire profession.

Service is an important part of music education. In the words of poet Maya Angelou at the 1994 Make a Difference Day ceremony, “To make a difference is not a matter of accident, a matter of casual occurrence of the tides. People choose to make a difference.” Perhaps Theodor Geisel (1971), the philosopher known as Dr. Suess, said it best, “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It’s not.” We are certainly grateful that these individuals cared a “whole awful lot” by spending their time as peer reviewers. Thanks Gail, Colleen, Debra, and Katia. It’s been a privilege working with you.

The whole process of peer review is a vital one; in fact, it is recognized as the cornerstone on which we operate as researchers. According to Arden Bement, Director of the National Science Foundation from 2004 to 2010, peer review is the “only method for judging academic outcomes. . . . We simply don’t trust any finding, method, conclusion, analysis, study that is not reported in a peer reviewed outlet” (Pitchford, 2012). Peer review benefits the entire profession by facilitating a journal that builds a collective knowledge base, communicates information, validates research quality, and distributes rewards in terms of promotion and tenure (Schafner, 1994). In 2006, the journal Nature hosted a lively online debate on the efficacy of peer review in a digital age. Respondents noted shortcomings but agreed that the current peer review system assures quality through expert opinions, manages competition for publication space, and improves scholarly scientific knowledge. Nature’s editors concluded that the current model may not be perfect, but like democracy or the American jury trial system, may be better than other systems yet invented (Jefferson, 2006).

Although its value is widely recognized, each profession implements peer review slightly differently (Pitchford, 2012). JMTE’s interpretation of peer review provides important publication checks and balances. Because there are always three reviewers for each manuscript, each often notices different features. If one reviewer happens to miss an important point, another will catch it. If one reviewer chooses to emphasize syntax and construction while another carefully considers research design, the result is a stronger manuscript. And if two reviewers note the same issue, that convergence accentuates the comment’s importance to the author. A healthy mental note when contemplating an unfavorable reviewer comment might be, “If that reviewer didn’t understand my intent, then readers might not as well. Revision is in order.”

In an extensive evaluation of peer review practice in the United Kingdom, The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2011) accepted days of written and verbal testimony to evaluate a variety of peer review procedures. I would encourage anyone interested in this topic to peruse this thorough report. The committee distinguished from among single blind, double blind, and open peer review procedures. JMTE uses a double blind procedure, as is typical of most, if not all, journals in the social sciences. Double blind review means that the author does not know the names of the reviewers, and the reviewers do not know the author’s name, his or her professional affiliation, or the identity of other reviewers. At a recent lecture on publication peer review I attended, David Resnik (2012), research ethicist at the National Institutes of Health, specified that typically science journals use a single blind review process in which authors do not know the names of reviewers, but the reviewers know both the names and professional affiliations of manuscript authors. Many of the concerns about lack of objectivity during peer review as identified by the House of Commons Committee would appear to be the result of single blind reviewing. A third, more recent procedure involves open peer review in which names of both authors and reviewers are revealed. Open review can happen prepublication–and revisions based on the reviewers’ comments are possible–or postpublication–with author’s final revisions following an open period of peer comments.

As an additional check, each JMTE reviewer can read the comments of the other two reviewers although the names of those reviewers remain blinded. This procedure functions as quality control and as a way of informing/training reviewers. Informal conversations with experienced reviewers indicate that reading other reviewers’ comments is one of the greatest benefits of being a reviewer. It is an opportunity to compare how other experts in our field respond to the same manuscript. As editor, it has certainly been my experience that reading the thoughtful but differing views of reviewers is one of the most personally beneficial parts of my editorial duties.

Identified problems with peer review have included length of turnaround time, reviewer bias, and a tendency to reward conservatism while rejecting innovative practices (Solomon, 2007). Specifically, JMTE addresses these issues as follows:

It is important to note that JMTE reviewers are all experienced researchers themselves and are experts in various aspects of music teacher preparation. They know what it is to be a beginning scholar publishing first manuscripts, they know the rigor necessary to revise a manuscript when different reviewers ask for dissimilar revisions, and they have experienced the disappointment of rejection. So they bring compassion, rigor, expertise, and perhaps vision to the table. We are grateful that these individuals volunteer to serve in this vital capacity. Please join me in thanking them for their service.