Although I cannot recall when I began reviewing for the Journal of Agromedicine, I do recall my first publication with the journal back in 2006. Once I began publishing manuscripts, I realized how important it is to share in the work involved in publishing. I believe that researchers have a responsibility to contribute to the publishing process. Every review is a learning experience in trying to create a report that is scientifically rigorous, clear, and as useful to other researchers as possible. All of us who publish are responsible for the quality of research that we read and use for our work.
Reviewing is a serious endeavor. My approach to reviewing is to read the submission through before thinking about how it could be improved. In my second reading, I think about the relevance of the introduction to setting up the hypotheses and approach. I think about whether the relevant literature has been acknowledged. This is followed by a critical review of the methods and interpretation of the results. I am probably most interested in the methods used and how they are employed to answer the research question. The last aspect is how it all comes together in the discussion. When I have examined all the separate parts of the paper and how they fit together as a whole, I am usually satisfied that the review is the best I can do with it. A final check is to think about what questions a reader might ask and whether they have been answered in the manuscript.
Assisting non-native English speakers who wish to publish in English language journals has been a major concern for me. I have helped my Chinese colleagues improve the understandability of their manuscripts, and they have expressed the challenges they face in publishing in international journals. Accessibility to English journals has improved, since many journals are now providing English-editing services to researchers.
The reviews where I often contribute the most are where the statistical methods can be improved. I recently reviewed a paper examining members of a family within a community, but the methods did not control for the non-independence of measures in family members. I was able to suggest that a different analysis be conducted so that the standard errors and significance testing results would be more accurate. Manuscripts using scales and latent variables are also those where I find that I can be helpful in suggesting way to test for reliability and validity, or simply to discuss these issues in the scales that are used.
I have benefited from the knowledge of reviewers and the time they spent thinking about my submitted manuscripts. When we submitted our paper on the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Agricultural Centers’ YouTube channel, the feedback was helpful in giving us advice of what readers would want to know about the channel and our analysis of the time series data. These suggestions including addressing what specific health and safety information shared on YouTube was shown to be effective and how YouTube videos were being accessed by users. The suggestions by reviewers and the associate editor greatly improved the paper. The reviewers had ideas that we had not considered but were important for readers.
With increasing demands on researchers’ time, it has become more difficult to recruit reviewers. I had this experience when working as an associate editor for a public health journal. I struggled to find reviewers for papers. Most of my invited reviewers did not respond to my invitation, and many declined to review. This is of great concern for the future of publishing. I think we need to expand the pool of reviewers to include more graduate students and post-doctoral trainees, as well as expanding internationally. Mentors should be encouraged to help their mentees in doing reviews and start these habits early in their mentees’ careers.
I have had editors personally email me and tell me how my review helped him or her come to a decision on a manuscript. I find this motivating as a reviewer. There are so few incentives to review and with the pressures of submitting grants and papers, it can be difficult to make the time to do so. Aside from personal responses from editors, other incentives can be considered to increase diversity in reviewers. Incentivizing international reviewers could be promoted by providing English language assistance to international reviewers. Many international reviewers may not feel as if their English usage is adequate to be a reviewer. They would benefit from knowing a native English speaker might review and assist with improving the English in a review.
There are a few journals who send you a report at the end of the year informing you of your reviewer record for the journal. I think this might be helpful for faculty for reporting their productivity. It is very difficult to keep track of the reviews you do and is more that needs to be tracked. I think that reviewer awards are also a bonus that leads to an appreciation of the time spent reviewing. In 2023, I won such an award from the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), and it felt like an acknowledgment that reviewing was appreciated by a journal that I publish in.
I will continue to encourage authors in my field to review for the Journal of Agromedicine. I have found that the review process is efficient and easy to navigate. The editors provide sufficient time for conducting the review and inform reviewers about the outcome of the review process. I have appreciated the Journal of Agromedicine as both an author and as a reviewer.
The Journal of Agromedicine annually selects one peer reviewer who exemplifies a commitment to assuring the high scholarly quality of what we publish. Past “Peer Reviewers of the Year”: Stephen McCurdy, University of California, Davis (2013); Mark Purschwitz, University of Kentucky (2014); Peter Lundqvist, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (2015); Lorann Stallones, Colorado State University (2016); Joan D. Flocks, University of Florida (2017); the Guest Editors for the issue dedicated to the Socio-ecological Model (Susan Gallagher, Tufts University School of Medicine; Jill Kilanowski, Mount Carmel College of Nursing; Barbara Lee, National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety; Amy K. Liebman, Migrant Clinicians Network; Kami Silk, Michigan State University) (2018); Dennis Murphy, Penn State University (2019); Jennifer Lincoln, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2020); Steve Waring, Essentia Institute of Rural Health (2021); Thomas A. Arcury, Wake Forest School of Medicine (2022); and Cheryl Beseler, University of Nebraska Medical Center (2023).