Increasing Transparency in Manuscript Review (Part 2)
Yesterday, I discussed the how manuscript review for publication in academic journals is an opaque, confusing, even intimidating process. Authors are seldom given any feedback on the process of review and only hear from the editor once a final judgment is rendered. Reviewers too do not have access to the opinions of other reviewers. And editors learn quickly that the process is complicated and fraught with delays, such that even the best intentioned editors can’t do much to speed up the process of review. Because editors often seem to have the worst job in the whole process, one might wonder why they don’t do more to increase transparency about the review process. In this post, I’ll consider some of the reasons why, and then conclude by discussing how opacity hurts the process overall.
First, editors aren’t more open because it protects them against reasonable claims of bias. An editor has no vested interest in letting the author of a rejected manuscript know that the reviewers were actually quite mixed in their judgments. For example, what to do with a manuscript that splits the decisions of its three reviewers: one says accept, another revise, and a third reject. If the editor’s final decision is reject, then telling the author about how the reviewers didn’t give a particularly clear opinion doesn’t increase confidence in the editor’s leadership.
Second, the secretive process forces authors to accept time delays. Authors have a strong desire to see their work reviewed in a timely manner. But editors, given that the work is not their full-time job, must prioritize and limit the amount of time they spend working for their journal each week. A secretive process prevents authors from suggesting editors spend more time giving judgments to submitted manuscripts, because authors are prevented from knowing information like the rate of submissions that the journal receives.
Third, the process increases the value of accepted manuscripts. If judgments were rendered openly and quickly, authors would be able to rapidly find a journal to publish their work. But because of the time delays, each accepted manuscript comes with a history of extensive revision, long waits, peer review, and ultimate redemption when the work appears in print. This type of effort creates buy-in for the system, something desperately needed if the academic journal, as a medium, can continue. Because online publishing is so easy, many authors can get their work to the academic community without a journal. A more secretive process makes each published work seem of comparatively greater value.
There are definitely advantages, thus, to an opaque review process. But what is gained does not outweigh what is lost. Authors regularly get mixed feedback, suggesting peer-review consensus is hard to come by. Editors don’t make progress on publications for long periods of time, reducing trust in the system. Reviewers seldom get feedback on their own review, making it hard to improve. And the whole process is shrouded in excess formality.
The outstanding question is whether this lack of transparency hurts the potential survival of academic journals. Already some journals are doing away with printed copies and changing to a rolling publication model (when something is accepted, it is published; there is no “in press”). This new model is one step closer to greater openness. Perhaps someday submitted manuscripts could be put online for open review; authors could see detailed feedback prior to an editor’s decision. Or a series of decision rules could be put into place to determine if a manuscript is published, reducing the editor’s role significantly.
Opacity has a lessened place in this age of openness. And journals must adjust to having their policies questioned more frequently. When the process of review is delayed or confusing, authors have a right to demand to know just what is going on. Being more open about the process of review will increase faith in the system, partly because it exposes areas where a clear consensus was not available. Even though opacity may offer some benefits, transparency makes the system stronger, not weaker.
Related posts (automatically generated):