Peer Review Week 2016 #PeerRvWk16

So apparently it's Peer Review Week 2016, at least on Twitter. I thought I'd take the time to sketch out a few thoughts on the topic.

From my perspective, as someone who has contacted, discussed, and, mainly, negotiated with peer reviewers, they hold a special place in theAdmin's heart. 

To put it bluntly, peer reviewing is what makes the academic world go round. Is it perfect? Of course not. But the reviewers who ensure integrity in what is published, thus helping to create the body of scholarship required for any academic community, are more than just cogs in the great machine of publishing. How should peer reviewers be recognised? This is one of the main questions that pops up when discussing reviewing. For a double blind system to work, recognition is inherently difficult. Open peer review is a different story, but there are inherently difficult issues with both forms. Recognition-wise, is being included in a list at the end of a volume good enough? Is it enough to receive an automated email (however sincere) thanking you for your time and inviting you to submit your own work? 

The answers are, usually, no. Peer reviewers are some of my favourite people. Usually charitable, enthusiastic, innovative, and encouraging scholars who wish for nothing more than to help better their field by helping to create better scholarship. There are of course exceptions, but 9.9/10 who agree, do so with the best interest of the author and the field at heart. I've received countless confidential notes with reviews stating that if this is an ECR instead of a SCR, then they would like to modify the language to be more encouraging....if someone is at the beginning of their scholarly career then there is a massive amount of potential and they'd like to help with development. 

But how do we, as members of academia, recognise this hard work and this development potential? We must, firstly, recognise that what I like to refer to as "Reviewer Fatigue" is a real issue. This is when a good, solid reviewer is asked to review so many times that they either (A) grow tired of it and move on to something else or, more commonly (B) simply cannot complete the number of review requests in the time they have allotted for reviews. Reviewer Fatigue emerges for several reasons, and keeping it at bay was one of my main goals. Editors can quite easily become exasperated with repeated denials to review for whatever reason and so can quite easily begin to rely on a reviewer who repeatedly provides excellent quality - and just as importantly - timely reviews in order to meet the strict copy deadlines. And I don't mean to say that Reviewer Fatigue is generated by editors. The solution is a complicated one - one way theEditor dealt with it was when someone became such an integral part of the journal's processes for this reason, the reviewer was invited to join the editorial board. So, in part, recognition was duly awarded within the constraints of what an academic editor can actually do (keep in mind that who owns the journal and its revenue and who edits/runs the journal are two entirely separate entities, which is a debate for another time).

But I digress. So, what was my main reason for wanting to jot down some thoughts this week? Purely and simply to say one thing: 

THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO REVIEWS

Seriously, give yourself a round of applause.......giphy.com

-theAdmin

Speaking with Editors at Conferences

Something I've been asked quite a bit is about the presence of editors and editorial board members at conferences. We all know what the conference circuit is like - give a paper, listen to a paper, go see the sights, maybe - if you can afford it - go to the conference dinner. But what else could you do at a conference to help increase your chances of getting that conference paper published? Well, to begin with, you could actually speak to journal editors. And I mean actual academic editors, not the journal publisher's representative. Whilst the latter can certainly give you useful information about the scope of the journal (and probably some freebies), the former is who you need to speak to if you want to get your paper closer to being published.

OK theAdmin, you might say. But where to start? I mean, what about the actual speaking with editors part? Here's my top tips:

1.) Firstly, PLEASE DO. Seriously. There's very little at a conference that is more boring for an editor than not having anyone attend a Meet the Editors roundtable session. Speaking with potential authors is exactly their purpose. Forget all your insecurities and imposter syndrome issues and go and say hello, find out what the journal is like and what the editor is looking for. You might find you can save yourself quite a bit of stress (Click here for my post on the main reason for rejection) with a five minute conversation.

An editor waiting at a conference roundtable....giphy.com

2.) Don't feel unimportant. Editors attend conferences in part to find and attract new authors. If you've never published with a particular journal, or if you have and you are likely to do so again, then you are considered a potential author. Having these conversations can help direct your conference paper into a more publishable context once you find the right journal.

3.) Work the room. You can talk to as many editors as are present (You just can't submit to multiple editors at once). Find out about as many journals as possible. Why? You might discover a gem that you'd never considered - or not really heard much about (esp. true at international conferences). You might also find relevant calls for papers. Furthermore, editors are usually on several editorial boards at the same time, so just because they are there for specialist journal A doesn't mean they can't talk to you about generalist journal B if it's a better fit.

4.) Speaking of better fits, editors know their field. If you talk to one and find that maybe it's not right for you, ask if they have any suggestions. Seriously. The academic editorial world is pretty small. If they are a halfway decent editor, then they can recommend another journal that might be a better fit. But, usually, you have to ask. Think about it - if a paper clearly doesn't fit in a journal, an editor can avoid extra work by suggesting somewhere else to you quickly at a conference rather than waiting for a submission and then rejecting it and suggesting somewhere else.

5.) If you know you are interested in a specific journal, then arrange an appointment with the editor or editorial board member if you can. They may just refer you to a roundtable session, but most will consider meeting with you. Conferences are about networking - two birds, one stone. It will also give you something concrete to put on your application for a conference fund....

6.) Last - but not least - INTRODUCE YOURSELF: nobody else will. Get the ball rolling. This may not help immediately, but when you follow it up with an email or submission, you may feel more confident knowing who is on the other end of that system. I've worked with many ECRs in the past - they always seem more confident with submissions if they have met the editorial team.


And, after what feels like a decade long hiatus, those are my top tips for meeting editors at conferences. Go forth and be industrious. And look out for more material soon!

-theAdmin