Guidebook:

Top peer review

challenges for
authors and how YOU
can overcome them

www.editage.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1

Mounting challenges in the peer review process 2

What are some drawbacks to peer review in the scientific process? 3

Time-consuming process 3

Comprehensiveness vs. quality 3

Contradictory reviewer comments 3

Access to the author 3

How can YOU as the author overcome these challenges? 4

The future of high-impact publishing for the smart researcher 4

How this can help you overcome peer review problems 5

What authors and reviewers have to say about peer reviews? 7

References: 8

Guidebook: Top peer review challenges for authors and how YOU can overcome them
Introduction

You've worked for months, maybe years, on your research, and think you’re on a winning path when
you submit your manuscript to a top academic journal, until you’re derailed by the peer review.
Data shows only 1.2% of manuscripts submitted are accepted as is.1 This means almost all
academic authors have to deal with peer review comments at some time or the other.
Fig 1: A study of 3,500 manuscript review experiences

Source: Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective, Springer.

In 2017, an interesting study revealed key insights about the duration and quality of peer review,
including the outcome of the process. It showed that of the 3,500 submissions evaluated, 572 were
desk rejected without a review and 693 were rejected after the first round of review. On the other
hand, 2,128 manuscripts were eventually accepted after reviews, while only 43 were accepted ‘as
is’ and another 64 were withdrawn by the author.1

Guidebook: Top peer review challenges for authors and how YOU can overcome them 1
Mounting challenges in the
peer review process

Peer reviews, while critical for high-impact journals to uphold the quality and verify the findings of
every article submitted, can be quite frustrating for authors. In fact, a Sense about Science study
revealed that only 38% of researchers understand how peer reviews work.2 According to the Council
of Science Editors’ white paper on publication ethics, peer reviewers are expected to do more than
just deliver a fair judgment as experts in their field.3 A peer reviewer’s responsibilities include:

 Evaluating the scientific accuracy, composition, novelty and relevance of the research, apart from
checking if the writing is clear and concise.

 Sharing timely written feedback about the strengths and overall scientific value of the paper.

 Alerting the journal editor about potential ethical issues, for example, a lack of informed consent
or duplicate submissions.

 Producing an unbiased, constructive, and informative review of the manuscript, without any
personal comments or criticism.

 Ensuring the entire peer review process remains confidential.

Given that reviewers are often overloaded with their own academic work, plus the fact that most
reviews are anonymous with few incentives to deliver, it is not surprising that the waiting time for the
peer review process is getting longer. Add to this the time taken for author revisions and multiple
rounds of reviews and the process from submission to publication can take anywhere from 249 to
572 days, depending on the field of research.1 Moreover, the surge in the volume of research has
not been matched with a growth in the number of reviewers, which has led to concerns about a
steady decline in the quality of the review process.

Guidebook: Top peer review challenges for authors and how YOU can overcome them 2
What are some drawbacks to
peer review in the scientific
process?
There are several challenges related to the peer review process, which can have a direct impact on
you as the research author.

Time-consuming process
Many academic journals still take over a year to review and publish a research paper,4 and this is
mostly attributed to a slow peer review process. While finding the right peer reviewer for a paper
can be time-consuming, the multiple and more extensive revisions required from authors is
decelerating this process even further. In fact, it can take months just to get a response from the
journal; data shows that the first response time in SciRev data is 13 weeks on average.1

Comprehensiveness vs. quality

An analysis of peer review length by Publons shows that reviewers, on an average, write 300 more
words for high-quality journals as compared to other journals, often in an attempt to impress
editors.5 However, the review length does not always coincide with its quality. Since a peer reviewer
needs to assess the paper as a whole, it is not necessary that s/he will comment on every section of
the paper.

Contradictory reviewer comments

In cases where there are multiple peer reviewers, differing views on the paper’s strengths,
weaknesses, and importance can often lead to contradictory comments. Such inconsistencies can
be confusing for an author. For example, take a look at what two different peer reviewers had to say
about the same paper.

- Reviewer A: `I found this paper to be extremely complicated, with a large number of defects.'
- Reviewer B: `This paper is written in a clear style, and can be easily understood by readers.'

Access to the author

Communication between the author and journal reviewer can be quite limited depending on the type
of peer review. While the author can reply to agree/disagree with the review comments, it’s unlikely
that the reviewer will connect with the author to discuss any concerns they may have during the
review process.

Guidebook: Top peer review challenges for authors and how YOU can overcome them 3
How can YOU as the author
overcome these challenges
Peer reviews have their flaws, but they are likely to remain at the center of the publishing process for
academic journals. So what do you do if you want to be published in a top international journal, and
are looking to strengthen your core research or need inputs on your research problem and design?
Is there a way authors can accelerate this process or have a more positive influence on the outcome
of a peer review?

With Editage’s Scientific Editing, you can!

The future of high-impact publishing for the

smart researcher
Editage’s Scientific Editing service provides the support and guidance you need to create a
publishing-worthy manuscript. Your paper undergoes multiple evaluations by three handpicked
experts.

 The Scientific Reviewer: Experienced peer reviewers for international journals like Nature carry
out an in-depth technical review of your paper - including tables and figures, methods used,
citations, and novelty - and recommend how best to match your work to your target journal’s aims
and scope.

 The Premium Editor: Industry experts with over 20 years of experience polish your paper’s
English and formatting as part of a comprehensive manuscript editing; they will also help you
create a compelling cover letter and help you effectively address journal reviewer comments.

 The Publication Expert: A senior member of the in-house team will oversee both these
processes, conduct a plagiarism check and prepare a report on any missing information.

Guidebook: Top peer review challenges for authors and how YOU can overcome them 4
How this can help you overcome peer review
problems
The path to publication can be a long and stressful one, with challenges at every step, from
submission to revision to acceptance, and in some cases, rejection. Editage’s Scientific Editing
experts will work with research authors to address and overcome these publication challenges

 Accelerate publication: With Scientific Editing, you receive comments from experienced
scientific reviewers in a matter of days. By spotting and correcting possible changes beforehand,
you are likely to get minimal comments for revision from journal peer reviewers. While we do not
guarantee acceptance ‘as is’, papers that undergo Scientific Editing have a 30% faster
acceptance rate!

 Continued support for authors: Editage’s Scientific Editing service allows you to raise any
concerns or queries with our reviewers, and be assured of a response that will smoothen your
way forward. Moreover, with a response letter check, editing responses to journal feedback, and
unlimited re-formatting for multiple journals, we help guide you on the right track to being
accepted by a top international journal.

 Clear, comprehensive feedback: Our experienced peer reviewers check each section of your
paper from manuscript summary to discussion, providing specific and actionable feedback with
clear suggestions on how to improve your paper. The sample case below highlights differences in
the comments by a journal peer reviewer and Editage’s Scientific Reviewer, including the latter’s
many advantages.

Guidebook: Top peer review challenges for authors and how YOU can overcome them 5
Table 1: Journal Peer Review vs Scientific Editing
Typical comments by
journal peer reviewer
Abstract:
This is quite brief and
seems incomplete.
Introduction:
This is very brief and doesn’t
adequately describe the
significance and need for the
current study. The study lacks
a hypothesis.
Methods
• The study design and the
inclusion/exclusion criteria are
not clear.
• The data are pretty dated
(THA performed 25-35 years
back) and may not be relevant
to current practice.
• No justification for sample
size has been provided
Results
This section is difficult to follow
and has several instances of
missing text and numbers
Discussion
No comment given
Typical comments by
Editage’s Scientific Reviewer
• Please also describe the design and setting
of the study (e.g. prospective or
retrospective, single-center or multicenter, etc.)
• The results statement should be supported
by some numerical data.
• Please also highlight that this is the first large
study in a Japanese population
• Are there any advantages of this design over
the other femoral component designs? These
should be discussed to help clarify the
rationale and significance of the proposed
study.
• Some of these previous studies should be
discussed briefly so that what is known about
the topic is clearly presented.
• Please also include a statement specifying
the study objective/hypothesis—the methods
section (choice of outcomes and statistical
tests) should be guided by and aligned with
the study objective/hypothesis.
• Please clearly describe the study design
(e.g., retrospective, single-center, and
case-series), inclusion and exclusion criteria,
and the outcomes assessed in the study.
• The data appear to be quite dated and will
raise questions of why more recent and
updated data were not analyzed in this study.
Please clarify.
• In the description for acetabular liners, the
provided numbers add up to 127; what liners
were used in the other 10 hips?
• Please clarify if a power analysis was
performed to justify sample size.
• It will be helpful if the Results section is
structured into sub-sections and presented in
the same order and sequence as the Methods.
This will improve the flow of the manuscript
and allow a reader to remain oriented.
• Please include results of statistical
comparison between the two groups.
• Please also present the results in “%” to allow
easier comparison with results of other studies
in the literature, which could be similarly
converted into percentages.
• You should also address other potential
limitations such as retrospective study design,
relatively small study size, possibility of usage
of implants that may not be currently used.
Guidebook: Top peer review challenges for authors and how YOU can overcome them
Advantages of Editage’s
Scientific Review
The journal reviewer’s comment is
somewhat vague and difficult to
address. Editage’s Scientific
Reviewer provides detailed, specific,
and actionable feedback and
suggestions.
Editage’s Scientific Reviewer
provides specific examples where
additional details are needed to
clarify the rationale and significance
of the study.
Editage’s Scientific Reviewer flagged
some of the same critical concerns
that were raised by the journal
reviewer, thus allowing the author to
address them prior to submission.
Additionally, Editage’s Scientific
Reviewer indicates specific
information that the author can add
to improve the methods section.
The author may not know how to
address the journal reviewer’s
comment about the Results being
“difficult to follow.” Editage’s Scientific
Reviewer flagged the same critical
concern that the journal reviewer had,
but gave a concrete suggestion on
how to make the section easier to
follow.
Journal reviewers often do not
provide comments on some sections
of the manuscript—the Discussion
section in this instance. Editage’s
Scientific Reviewer addressed all
sections of the manuscript, and here
suggested ways to improve the
Discussion.
6
What authors and reviewers have
to say about peer reviews?
All manuscripts are different, and so are the peer reviews for each. Here’s what an author had to
say about the peer review process:
Quality control of peer review process must be carried out. Not all reviews are of the same quality or
technically sound. This must be checked by the associate editor/editor. The editor should be more
invested in the process.

There needs to be a system that can help eliminate flaws in the manuscript and in the research
itself, and that’s where Scientific Editing can level the field. Here’s what one of our peer reviewers
has to say about conducting a review:
As a reviewer, I act as a filter, to ensure only proper research is published, which is why I make sure
the article I am being asked to review matches my expertise. I then give the manuscript a thorough
reading to determine if it is novel and interesting enough to warrant publication, and check the
structural components to ensure they fit the journal guidelines. I also research existing scientific
literature in the field; then, make suggestions to substantiate the quality of the research being
submitted for publication and communicate necessary revisions through comments to the authors.

Editage Scientific Editing’s terrific-three combination of in-depth editing, advice from top journal
peer reviewers, and publication support, has helped more than 400 papers get published in
high-impact academic journals, such as Elsevier, ACS, and Wiley-Blackwell, taking an average of
just 61 days.

Intrigued? Visit our website or write in to request@editage.com and learn how Editage’s Scientific
Editing service for top journals can help you with your high-impact publishing goals!

Not ready with your manuscript yet?

Recommend Editage to others!
Editage offers efficient, accurate and thorough manuscript editing support, with guaranteed quality,
on-time delivery, assured data security, and customized support with experts in more than 1,300
subject areas. Scientific Editing is Editage’s premium editing service for those keen to publish in
high-impact journals, and includes multiple rounds of editing and formatting to ensure your
academic success.
If you’re not ready with your manuscript, but know someone who can benefit from superior
language and technical editing, sign up and refer them to Editage. One of the best ways to build a
network is to offer guidance, especially to early career and international researchers. Not only are
you doing your bit in growing scientific research, you’re also saving on your next editing project with
us.

Guidebook: Top peer review challenges for authors and how YOU can overcome them 7
How referral rewards work
1. Sign in and share your
unique invitation link/coupon
code with colleagues

2. Your colleagues pre-

book their 10% discount
coupon

3. Your colleagues confirm

their first order using
the coupon

4. You receive a $40 discount

coupon and more special
offers

The referral rewards may change in the future, so act now.

References:
1. J. Huisman, J. Smits - Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective,
Springer, 2017. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5
2. Quality, Trust and Peer Review: Researchers’ Perspectives 10 Years On’. A study by Elsevier and
Sense about Science, 2019. Available online at
https://wordpress-398250-1278369.cloudwaysapps.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Quality-trust-
peer-review.pdf
3. Kakoli Majumder - Tips for first time peer reviewers: Reviewing a scientific manuscript
responsibly, Editage Insights, 2015. Retrieved from
https://www.editage.com/insights/tips-for-first-time-peer-reviewers-reviewing-a-scientific-manuscript-
responsibly?loginform=loggedin-normal
4. Richard Smith - Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals, J R Soc Med,
2006. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
5. Gemma Conroy - Scientists go to great lengths in reviewing high-quality research, Nature Index,
2018. Retrieved from
https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/scientists-go-to-great-lengths-in-reviewing-high-quality-rese
arch

Guidebook: Top peer review challenges for authors and how YOU can overcome them 8
Editage
A division of Cactus Communications, Editage was established in April 2002 with an aim to bridge
the gap between authors and peer-reviewed journals and accelerate global scientific research
communication. Editage is trusted and endorsed by top publishers, journals, and societies across
the world, including Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, Taylor & Francis, PLOS, Hindawi, COPE, BMJ, and
OSA.

466,000
authors served

1,294,000
papers edited

2,000+
experts

OUR BRANDS

LONDON  PRINCETON  SINGAPORE  BEIJING  SHANGHAI  TOKYO  SEOUL  AARHUS  MUMBAI

© 2002-2020 Cactus Communications. All Rights Reserved.