The peer review process and the constant search for reviewers

Abstract

International Journal of Therapy and RehabilitationVol. 26, No. 6 EditorialFree AccessThe peer review process and the constant search for reviewersVicki WilliamsVicki WilliamsEmail: E-mail Address: [email protected]Editor, International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, MA Healthcare, Mark Allen Group, London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorVicki WilliamsPublished Online:1 Jul 2019https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2019.0085AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail I have been the editor of the International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation for approximately three and a half years, and I am pleased with the amount of submissions that we receive, which is steadily increasing year on year.The review protocol for the journal is that every article has to go through a double-blind peer review process, and each article needs to have two reviews in order for a decision to be made. As every submitted manuscript that comes through the editorial peer review system is highly specific, it can be difficult to find two peer reviewers who are willing to review. For some papers, we have invited over 20 possible reviewers. When they all decline it can be disappointing, especially when you have spent hours looking for them, and sending email invitations. Conversely, a lot of the people we ask are incredibly busy and sometimes they just do not have the time to read over the manuscript, which is totally understandable.When the reviewers we ask either decline or do not respond, it means that it delays the editorial decision that we give to authors, which can be frustrating for the authors, as well as us, as we aim to get papers through the system as quickly as we can. Sometimes, it may feel to authors that we are not doing anything or are not communicating with them, but the truth is that behind the scenes we are researching and inviting as many suitable reviewers as we can. We give reviewers 7 days to respond to either agree or decline the invitation to review. If they do not respond, they are automatically uninvited and the next person on the list is invited. This continues until reviewers agree to review the paper. Once a reviewer has agreed, they have 21 days to submit their review.If we have exhausted all the reviewers we have on our editorial database and any others we have found through searching or by other reviewers' recommendations, we ask the authors to suggest potential reviewers we can contact. We ask that they are not present or past colleagues, that they have published a paper on a similar topic, and have a valid email address that we can use for identification.Therefore, as our submissions grow, the need to increase our reviewer database to match this is paramount. For anyone who is interested in joining our database and reviewing manuscripts for the journal, please get in touch and let me know the topics you are interested in, links to published papers if possible, or a CV. We always welcome enquiries!If you have any queries on the peer review process, whether you are about to submit a manuscript or if you would like an update on how your paper is progressing, please do not hesitate to get in touch. FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byHow to keep your editor happy? Keep it simpleLauren Newman1 August 2019 | British Journal of Midwifery, Vol. 27, No. 8 2 June 2019Volume 26Issue 6ISSN (online): 1759-779X Metrics History Published online 1 July 2019 Published in print 2 June 2019 Information© MA Healthcare LimitedPDF download