There’s a reviewer crisis in academia—there are far more articles being submitted to journals than there are scholars willing to review manuscripts. Authors are complaining on Twitter that it’s taking months to get reviews back on journal submissions, and editors are throwing up their hands and saying they can’t get anyone to review. There are lots of factors at play here. On the demand side, there’s the competitiveness of the job market putting pressure on scholars to publish more. And in terms of supply, potential reviewers are finding themselves stretched thin by staffing shortages and ballooning class sizes and other demands on their time.
Now, structural problems deserve structural solutions. But there are also smaller things we can do to to help bridge the gap while working toward bigger changes in the long-term. For grad students and other junior scholars, those smaller things might include reaching out to editors to volunteer.
Now, you might be thinking: What if I’m not really qualified?! But the thing is—if you’re working on papers to submit to journals, then you’re also qualified to review. The editors who want your input may just not know you exist yet, because there isn’t some big database out there with names and contact info and areas of expertise for every potential reviewer (especially now that people are abandoning Twitter in droves). As a result, editors often end up relying on their personal networks or on databases of published research when they’re trying to find people to review. And that means that they miss people—especially more junior people—who are less connected network-wise and who haven’t yet published their relevant work.
So, if you’re interested in doing your part review-wise (and learning what makes a paper publishable in your subfield—since you’ll also get to read other reviewers’ reviews), you can raise a hand to volunteer. One way to do that is by letting your advisors know that you’re interested in reviewing for journals. That way, if they get requests for reviews that they don’t have time to fulfill themselves, they can pass along your name as an alternate. But, of course, that means waiting for your advisor to get a request they can’t fulfill, hoping they remember to submit your name, and hoping the editor chooses you. Another option, then, is to contact journals directly. Start by making a list of all the journals you could imagine submitting your work to. Then do a quick Google search to find the contact info for each journal and drop them a note with your name, university, program, and areas of expertise. I’ll even include a sample script below (for more scripts like this, see my book, A Field Guide to Grad School).
Hello! I am writing to volunteer to serve as a reviewer for [JOURNAL]. I am an [Nth]-year student in [PROGRAM] at [UNIVERSITY], working with [ADVISOR(S)]. My expertise is in [LIST 1-3 BROAD SUBFIELDS OF YOUR DISCIPLINE], and my research primarily uses [METHODS]. *IF YOU HAVE PUBLISHED PAPERS OF YOUR OWN* have published in [JOURNALS] on [TOPICS], and I would be happy to review manuscripts related to this research. *IF YOU HAVEN'T YET PUBLISHED ANY PAPERS OF YOUR OWN* I am currently working on a project looking at [BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT PROJECT], and I would be happy to review manuscripts related to this research. Thank you for your work on behalf of the discipline! Sincerely, [YOUR NAME]
Of course, once you do get that first “Account Created in Manuscript Central” email, you may still not know where to start. So I figured I’d also include here some tips that I shared with a grad student recently after they got their first request to review.
Step 1: Decide Whether to Review
Most of the manuscripts that you get to review won’t be squarely in your wheelhouse. Maybe they use a method you don’t typically use. Or maybe they’re only tangentially related to your work topic-wise. In these cases, you might think—I’ll pass. But it’s actually beneficial for editors to have “imperfect” reviewers, because their read will help the editor to determine whether the manuscript makes sense to someone who might read and cite the manuscript, even if they don’t do that kind of work themselves.
That said, you can use the confidential “Comments to the Editor” textbox in the review platform to identify the scope of your review. In my own work, for example, I primarily use qualitative methods. Thus, if I get a request to review an article using a statistical method I’ve never used, I’ll use that confidential box to let the editor know that I’m not an expert in that particular method and encourage them to find at least one reviewer who can more closely evaluate that part of the work.
In general, when I’m asked to review, I ask myself two questions: 1) If this piece were published, would I be interested in reading it, teaching it, and/or citing it in my own work? and 2) Is this request from a journal where I would be interested in submitting my own work? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then I’ll almost always agree to submit a review.
Step 2: Skim
Once I agree to review a manuscript (and clear some time on my schedule to review it), I’ll start by reading the abstract, intro, and discussion/conclusion. The goal with this initial pass is to get a sense of the big stuff. Whether the piece is substantively a good fit for the journal/audience and whether the manuscript has the potential to make a useful contribution to the field.
If the answer to either of these questions seems to be no, then I’ll do a quick read of the rest of the paper (to make sure I wasn’t mistaken). And if the answers are still no, then I’ll write a short review focused on the points above. For example:
“[JOURNAL] focuses on [TOPIC/METHOD/AUDIENCE/ETC.]. This manuscript, by contrast, focuses on [TOPIC/METHOD/AUDIENCE/ETC.] and thus does not seem like a strong fit for this journal. Instead, the authors might consider submitting to [SUGGEST ALTERNATE JOURNAL OR TYPE OF JOURNAL].”
“In this article, the authors show [CENTRAL ARGUMENT/CONTRIBUTION]. Meanwhile, prior research has shown [SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR]. Replication is important. However, [JOURNAL] typically publishes work that makes a novel and substantial contribution to the field. Thus, I would recommend either that the authors [THINGS THEY COULD CHANGE TO STRENGTHEN THE CONTRIBUTION - E.G., RUN ADDITIONAL ANALYSES, ADD A NEW SOURCE OF DATA, CONSIDER AN ALTERNATE POSSIBILITY] or consider instead submitting this manuscript [AS A RESEARCH NOTE OR REPORT, TO A JOURNAL THAT PUBLISHES REPLICATIONS OR FOCUSES ON EMPIRICAL RATHER THAN THEORETICAL WORK, ETC.]”
Step 3: Read Strategically
If the manuscript passes this initial test, I’ll then go back and read the whole thing more carefully, with the following questions in mind:
Why do we need this study? Does the author provide a clear and compelling justification for the project? Does the author use the literature effectively to make that case? Are there any gaps in the logic? Are there any key literatures or citations missing? Could the literature review be streamlined or reorganized to make a more compelling case?
What did this study involve? Are the research goals clearly articulated? Do the data/methods allow the author to meet their goals? Are the data/methods clearly explained? Does the author provide a reasonable justification for their data/methods choices? Is the author using and data and methods appropriately?
What did this study find? What is the central argument/answer to the research question? Is the argument clear and compelling? What are the key findings? Do the findings support the central argument? Are there key pieces of information/context/explanation missing that could be added to better support the argument? Are the findings presented in a clear and logically organized way? Is there anything extraneous that could be cut for clarity and brevity?
What are the implications of this research? Does the author discuss what this research means for research and/or for policy/practice? Are these implications consistent with the findings? Are there additional implications that could be added to substantially increase audience interest in or engagement with the work? Does the author acknowledge limitations of their research and/or suggest ways that future scholars could build on/extend/clarify their work?
How readable is this manuscript? Are all the different parts of the manuscript telling the same story? Are there any parts of the manuscript that are difficult to understand or follow?
Note: There’s nothing in this list about grammar or spelling or formatting. Academic journals have copyeditors. It’s their job to help authors catch and fix minor errors. Save your energy for the bigger substantive things!
Step 4: Outline Your Review
You might be tempted to write the review while you’re reading. But this can lead to wasted effort if the author ends up addressing the problem that you initially identify, just further down in the paper than where you thought it would go. Instead, I’d recommend starting with the questions above as an outline and, as you’re reading, jot notes that you can flesh out when you write your review.
Step 5: Write What You’d Want to Read
I like to start my reviews with a short paragraph that summarizes, in one or two sentences, what the article is doing and contributing (i.e., “In this manuscript, the authors use [DATA AND METHODS] to reveal [KEY FINDINGS]. Based on this, they conclude that [CENTRAL ARGUMENT].” This helps me, especially if I end up getting asked to review a revision of the manuscript. And it also helps the author to see whether what they think they’re conveying to the reader is what actually comes across.
Next, I offer my overall assessment, usually saying something like: “There is much to like about this manuscript, including [KEY POSITIVES]. That said, there are also parts of the manuscript that could be substantially improved, including [KEY AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT].”
After that, I offer more detailed recommendations for revision, focusing on the dealbreakers: the things the authors would have to address for me to be willing to recommend accepting the article for publication in that journal. I start with the bigger things, usually one paragraph each. Then I mention the smaller things, usually in a bulleted list at the end (e.g., particular ideas/sentences that weren’t clear, minor points of clarification, etc.). And at the end I’ll also sometimes include a reference list with published work the author should probably engage with as they revise their piece.
When I’m offering these recommendations for revision, I also try to show the author how they can improve the manuscript rather than (just) pointing out the flaws. For example, instead of saying: “This research isn’t as novel as you claim that it is” I might say something like: “The authors claim to be the first to have studied [TOPIC]. However, prior research has shown [BRIEF SUMMARY, WITH CITATIONS]. To build on these findings, the authors might consider [EXPLAIN HOW THE AUTHOR CAN USE THEIR WORK TO BUILD ON/EXTEND WHAT’S BEEN DONE BEFORE].” This might seem like a lot more work (it is). But just pointing out the flaws runs the risk that the author won’t know how to adequately address them. And if the author doesn’t know how to adequately address those flaws, then there’s a higher chance that the manuscript will get resubmitted or submitted elsewhere with the same problems. So really, you’re saving either yourself or someone else time in the end. And you’re also creating an opportunity for an author to learn or even be inspired by the review process, rather than experiencing it as a blow to their confidence in their capabilities as a scholar.
And if the whole goal of academia is to produce and share knowledge, then it’s worth the time and effort to help a fellow author build and share their own knowledge too.