Innovation in peer review: introducing โvolunpeersโ
2018๋ 1์ 9์ผ
์ ์: Christopher Tancock
Pilot project on Journal of Molecular Biology demonstrates high engagement and satisfaction from editors and reviewers
When it comes to finding reviewers for the next article, we know that editors often face an uphill struggle. And the same sometimes goes for reviewers who are keen to use their knowledge of a community but have no way of getting noticed. At the same time, those reviewers whoย areย invited sometimes decline due to lack of familiarity with the subject matter, too many prior commitments or occasionally because they donโt know the journal well enough. These are familiar challenges but one title has been exploring a novel way of overcoming them โ and raising editor and reviewer satisfaction in the process!
Introducing Volunpeers
Theย Reviewer Recognition Platformย ์ ํญ/์ฐฝ์์ ์ด๊ธฐย has enabled reviewers to volunteer their services for particular journals since September 2015. This enables less established researchers to deploy their valuable knowledge on a journal where their familiarity with the subject matter and recommendations can have the most impact. Like a number of its fellow Elsevier journals, theย Journal of Molecular Biologyย ์ ํญ/์ฐฝ์์ ์ด๊ธฐย (JMB) duly set up a module on the journal homepage which enables would-be reviewers to register via a simple form and record their areas of expertise. So far not a ground-breaking evolution but it is the next step in the process that has delivered remarkable results in just a few months.
After they have registered on JMBโs homepage, reviewers, or โVolunpeersโ are alerted to new manuscripts matching their expertise (and only when this is the case). If they see something they like, the Volunpeers can respond to โbookโ the article for their review. This is done on a first-come-first-served basis. Once a Volunpeer has come forward, the handling editor sends them the manuscript and instructions and awaits the review. Once a decision has been made on the paper in question, the editor provides concise and personalized feedback to the Volunpeer usingย Review Quality Instrumentย ์ ํญ/์ฐฝ์์ ์ด๊ธฐย methodology and the Volunpeer is similarly invited to give feedback on the process from their perspective.
Some impressive results
The results for JMB are arresting. In just 12 months, the number of reviewers registering via the journalโs homepage has increased by over 700%. Volunpeers are registering from around the globe, but the majority stem from the US. 20 editors who requested urgent assistance to secure additional reviewers have participated in the pilot and almost 40 Volunpeers have produced referee reports for over 20 manuscripts since the start of the year. Whatโs more, the reports are being delivered significantly faster than โstandardโ reviews and are being rated higher than average by the handling editors. The below table summarizes the performance of the pilot to date:
60% reply rate to initial notification
7.7 days in average to submit review
4.2/5 editor satisfaction
5/5 reviewer satisfaction
Positive feedback from all sides
In terms of the feedback received, the reception has been very positive on both sides of the operation as the quotes below attest:
"This was the first time that I got a detailed review/feedback on my review. Itโs really helpful, and I think more journals should do this. Encourages a better review process, and also encouraged me that my efforts to improve the manuscript were appreciated by the authors/editors" - Volunpeer "I really enjoyed participating in this review process. As a young investigator I appreciate opportunities to improve upon my reviewing skills. I hope to participate in more of these reviews in the futureโ - Volunpeer โThe review was far more comprehensive and helpful, both to the editor and to the authors, than the usual reports.โ - Handling editor โThe review was excellent, critical but constructive and written with authorityโ - Handling editor
The project has seen success in a number of areas, fromย increased interest to reviewย (Volunpeers are only alerted to papers matching their areas of interest/expertise),ย lower chance of declinesย (Volunpeers have themselves chosen to review for the journal rather than being invited by the editor);ย quality preservationย andย decreased time to reviewย (as demonstrated by average turnaround times and satisfaction ratings) andย greater transparencyย (editors mentor Volunpeers in the process and they benefit from feedback on their reports).
Looking ahead
The pilot has been a clear success but naturally there are elements that we wish to improve, for example we are currently working on automating the manuscript background match with reviewer profiles. Likewise, some elements of the operation still involve manual workarounds and obviously there is an additional step for the editors involved in providing feedback for the Volunpeers. Nonetheless, given the positive reception of the pilot; we are looking forward to expanding and adapting this concept in order to offer this functionality for new journals and communities, to help them with their specific needs. Keep an eye on theย Reviewer Recognition Platformย ์ ํญ/์ฐฝ์์ ์ด๊ธฐย and your favourite journal homepages for chances to become a Volunpeer yourself! If you are an editor yourself and interested in piloting this approach for your journal, touch base with your publisher.