The Peer Reviewer: An Endangered Species?

My experience for the last 6 months has convinced me that the peer reviewer has become a rara avis, perhaps even an endangered species. Never has it been so difficult to locate two reviewers per manuscript. Recently, I participated in a large online editors’ conference attended by Taylor and Francis journal editors from many disciplines and many countries. When we were asked about our most troubling issues, finding reviewers was the number # 1 problem. Refusals are at an all-time high. Some editors reported asking as many as 10 reviewers before finding one who agreed to conduct the manuscript review—and of course more than one is required by most journals. One of the conference participants reported that his university did not accord value to conducting peer reviews, causing the younger tenure-track faculty to devote their time to more highly valued activities such as grant-writing. At the other end of the age spectrum, older faculty are retiring. Because locating reviewers has become so difficult, another participant reported that she now has an associate editor whose only job is finding new reviewers!

I have been an editor for 26 years now, and until recently my task in selecting reviewers for a new manuscript submission mainly involved locating a reasonable match between the manuscript topic and the scientific and/or clinical expertise of the reviewers. It is a new and disturbing experience that finding reviewers—rara avis—has become paramount. I am spending countless hours doing so, which is a significant challenge given my full-time day job as a university professor.

The shortage of peer reviewers is especially concerning given the increased volume of manuscript submissions (approaching 600 annually at this journal) and increased level of scientific misconduct (hoax/spam papers, papermill submissions, unverifiable authors, and fake reviewers). A rigorous and unbiased peer review process has been in place within the scientific community since the 1600s when the first learned societies were formed (Thomas, 2011). Scrutiny by peers is indispensable in health science professions.

Inadequate peer review not only results in publication of faulty research but also misleads clinicians and harms patients (Kearney et al., 2016). Peer reviewers are requested to produce thoughtful and balanced reviews of the manuscripts they receive, exemplifying “epistemic respect” rather than the harsh behavior of the dreaded “reviewer two” (Krlev & Spicer, (2023). Keeping with the avian analogy, unkind squawking by a reviewer can occur, and a poor author could almost be pecked to death. Reviewer feedback should provide constructive suggestions to the author and sound guidance to the editor regarding disposition of the manuscript. In a 2010 study of peer review quality in three nursing journals (one of which was Issues in Mental Health Nursing), a majority of authors affirmed that peer reviews did provide constructive guidance (Shattell et al., 2010). I want my authors in 2023 to still receive this valuable guidance.

Let me share a few of my recent experiences in trying to find those rare birds: cheerful peer reviewers. When I issue an invitation to review a paper, I am listening for that cheerful chirp, “I agree, I agree.” (Music to my ears!) Instead, most often a disappointing ping sound is heard—a “decline” message—delivered within mere seconds of the email invitation to review. Of course, I immediately go to plan B. I have a great list of wise and dependable birds of variegated and colorful plumage, whom I have identified and enjoyed getting to know over the years. We flock together at professional organization meetings and other places where scholarly birds of a feather are fond of gathering. So, following a typical “decline,” I refer to my trusty list to make a new selection. Alas, this one’s e-mail no longer works. Unbeknownst to me, this bird has flown away from Georgia, nesting now at a California university. Back to the list. This reliable bird who always said “I agree” has begun the transition to retirement. No more reviewing. The next bird is too busy with his baby birds which need a lot of nurturance before they can fly. Others on the list are caring for older birds with broken wings. Some are completely out of sight on sabbatical or annual leave. And so it goes. Often, I must depart from my list to search the Web of Science, but the chances of hearing “I agree” there are pretty slim. When I finally hear the rare chirp “I agree,” I am almost as excited as I was last week when I saw a red-shouldered hawk!

Several suggestions were made at the Taylor and Francis conference, such as expanding editorial boards, removing board members who frequently decline reviews, and developing mentoring programs for novice reviewers such as doctoral students. It is obvious that greater incentives must be provided to reviewers (see Thomas, 2018). What can you do to help? Activism has enabled many rare species to be removed from endangered lists. Volunteer your services as a reviewer, suggest your colleagues, mentor your students. You can play a role in spotting the fledgling rara avis, and then taking them under your wing. You can share the rewards of reviewing, which include a sense of satisfaction in contributing to advancement of knowledge in your discipline.