Peer Review Questions & Answers: What & Why?

Peer review is essential to the quality and integrity of scientific publications. Thus, the peer reviewers for the Journal of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy (JPPCP) are vital members of our scholarly community. Once a manuscript is submitted to JPPCP and has undergone an initial screening by the editor, the manuscript is sent to two or more peer reviewers. Peer reviewers are experts or scholars who have similar research or clinical practice experience as the authors and can provide focused feedback for improving manuscript quality and accuracy. JPPCP has a database of reviewers from a variety of disciplines and geographical regions with a wide range of expertise. This database is always evolving to meet the dynamic needs of the Journal. Both new and experienced peer reviewers are invited to join the JPPCP’s scholarly community. Recognizing that new peer reviewers may have limited knowledge of the peer review process and journal expectations, I have planned a series of Peer Review Q&A editorials for 2023 to serve as a guide for peer review. For this issue, I would like to outline what peer review is and the benefits to you as the peer reviewer.

Q. What is peer review?

A. Peer review is a collaborative process among the journal editor and peer reviewers for critically evaluating a submitted manuscript (1). There are several forms of peer review including single-blind peer review (author’s identity is known), double-blind peer review (neither the identity of the author nor the reviewer is known), and open review (both author and reviewer identities are known) (1, 2). JPPCP uses double-blind peer review (3).

Peer reviewers provide authors with constructive comment for addressing any errors or unsupported conclusions and improving clarity and transparency of the manuscript’s methodology and findings. Peer reviewers also provide the editor with their recommendations for whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected. The decision types that peer reviewers for articles submitted to JPPCP may make are:

• Accept: In its current form, the manuscript is suitable for publication.

• Minor revision: After a few minor changes, the manuscript will be acceptable for publication. Further peer review may not be needed.

• Major revision: Before a publication decision can be made, substantial changes are needed such as a broader literature review, additional data analysis, expanded discussion of findings, or re-writing or re-organization of text. Re-review of the manuscript, ideally by the same peer reviewers, is necessary.

• Reject & Resubmit: There is merit in the manuscript, but due to need for significant revision such as vast improvement in the quality, readability, or depth or accuracy of the material presented, resubmission is necessary. Following considerable revision and resubmission, the journal may reconsider the manuscript.

• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication, and revision or resubmission would be unlikely to improve significant deficits or flaws in the paper.

Although the final decision for publication rests with the journal editor, reviewer recommendations and comments are key tools for which the editor uses to make a publication decision. Greater detail regarding how to expertly perform a peer review and how to write your peer review report will be the subject of another Peer Review Q&A in 2023.

Q. Why should I peer review?

A. Your work as a peer reviewer is seen as a valuable contribution to JPPCP and ultimately, to the larger scientific community. Although typically an unpaid professional service, there are several benefits to the peer reviewer. Peer review is a great way to boost your career (1). It provides you with an opportunity to read the latest research from clinicians and experts for which you have a shared interest and experience. Serving as a peer reviewer can also help you as an author. From conducting a peer review, you will learn what to expect as an author from the peer review process. By critically examining another’s work, peer review can improve your own analytical skills and help you identify how to improve your scientific writing for publication. Dedication to peer review may also increase your chances of future scholarly endeavors, such as editorial board positions (4).

Peer review can also increase your reputation as an expert in your field. Each year, JPPCP will publish a list of the year’s reviewers (5). This reviewer recognition provides you with a public record of your scholarly contribution as a peer reviewer. You may also ask for a certificate of recognition from the editor, acknowledging your role in peer review for JPPCP. Upon request, a reviewer confirmation letter may also be written by the editor for your records or to provide to your employer.

If you are interested in peer reviewing for JPPCP, please email the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected], and tell me about your areas of expertise and interest areas.

Q. I have received a request to peer review. Now what?

A. Before reviewing the manuscript, take a moment to “review” yourself. Are you qualified and knowledgeable about the manuscript topic? Do you have ample time to dedicate to giving a quality review for this paper? Typically, the review should be returned within 3 weeks. Keep in mind, you may need to repeat this process 2 or 3 more times as manuscript revisions by the authors may be needed. Also, peer reviewers must make sure there are no conflicts of interest. To adhere to ethical guidelines for peer review, only agree to review if you can be unbiased and ensure confidentially during the peer review process (6).

Q. What if I can’t wait for the next Peer Review Q&A on how to conduct a peer review?

A. You are in luck! The Journal’s publisher has a variety of resources and training modules. Check out the following resources from the Journal’s publisher, Taylor & Francis:

• Peer Review Training Program modules: https://editorresources.taylorandfrancis.com/reviewer-guidelines/peer-review-training/

• Peer Review Checklist with available PDF: https://editorresources.taylorandfrancis.com/reviewer-guidelines/review-checklist/

Laura Meyer-Junco, PharmD, BCPS, CPE, FASCP
Editor-in-Chief
[email protected]
Alexandra (Chloe) Su, PharmD Candidate
University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) College of Pharmacy Rockford, IL