The Ins and Outs of the Peer Review Process

Abstract

This whole game of peer reviewing is new for some of us librarians. In academic libraries, it is presumed that librarians perform some kind of scholarly activity as part of their responsibilities and as a way to ensure continuing appointment, tenure or promotion. Scholarly activity and creative projects are recognized in various ways, and publishing in a peer reviewed paper can be an integral part of fast-tracking your career path. However, it can also be intimidating. The fact that the peer review process can be scary was part of the raison d'etre for this journal. The first editorial board wanted a journal that felt approachable and connected to your local or regional library association, but they also knew that rigour and high quality papers were needed to make this publishing venture truly successful for everyone. I believe that we have done that. However, after reviewing some of the peer reviewing documents and communicating with a few of the section editors over the last three issues of the journal, I began to get a little worried and started to ask myself some questions. So, here are the questions and my answers. Are authors starting to feel dejected because their papers need substantial revision or have not been accepted the first time around? I sure hope not. The path to high quality, rigourous research is a long and hard one. We have already had to change our publication schedule to accommodate the time it takes for reviewers to do a thorough and comprehensive review of the articles and to allow sufficient time for authors to revise their documents. There have only been one or two articles that have passed through the process with minor revisions. Believe me, these are the exceptions, not the rule. When I speak to professorial colleagues about revisions and rejections, they simply smile and tell me that rejection is par for the course and you just need to persevere, revise and resubmit, sometimes many, many times. So, I encourage you to stick with it, stick with us. Take the criticisms in the spirit outlined in our guidelines. Allow your faceless, nameless allies to help you shine and produce the best article that really showcases your knowledge and expertise. We still plan to start a writing coaches' programme but this has been delayed a little. Hopefully it will be up and running next year. Are peer reviewers being too critical or not critical enough? This journal is still a fairly new endeavour, so everyone is still learning and we are striving to find a balance that allows new library professionals to gain some experience, but ensures we have a top rate reviewers' pool. Most reviewers have done an excellent job with their assignments. There are only two issues that I have identified as potentially problematic. One is to remember what your role is - a reviewer is not a copyeditor. It is perfectly acceptable for a reviewer to fix typos and comment on grammar, but it is not the main task of the reviewer. The main task is to comment on the content - is the research interesting, valuable, and innovative. Does it have merit? Is the article well organized, does it flow? As a reviewer, you are a very important player in this journal. With the editors, you ensure the quality of the journal, so if you feel that are article is out of your depth or interest, or if you feel you just don't have to time to invest, then please don't accept the assignment. The other note is about the tone of comments. Remember, this is perhaps the first time these writers have submitted work for this type of review, so be kind. I know this sounds cliche, but as you write, put yourself in the author's shoes and think about how you would feel if someone was discussing your work. By no means should you accept something you do not think is appropriate for publication, but try to be constructive and helpful in your comments to authors. Comments on the acceptability for publication and any strongly worded comments should be saved for the editors. …