The podcast music, I Talk to the Wind, produced by Yung Pinoy, as part of the NC State University Libraries State of Sound collection.
Establish
The Paper Trail has arrived at week four: Establish. Week one (Introduce) described the process of introducing a new research idea and getting the word out. Week two (Build) focused on how to take your idea to the next phase through writing. Week three (Present) explored bringing your idea to a wider audience. For this week’s conversation, we focus on ways to navigate the peer-review process in order to publish your work in journal articles, book chapters, and conference proceedings.
In a previous iteration of the SPARK Program, Dr. Keith Yamamoto, president of AAAS, emphasized that if researchers don’t publish their work, it’s exactly like not doing it, so we need good vehicles for communication. It’s a long road from idea to dissemination: developing an argument, applying for grants, conducting research, and finally making it all available through journal articles, book chapters, and conference proceedings.
Of course, peer-reviewed publication is a process in and of itself. That is where this week’s guest steps in. Rachel Mosher is Managing Editor with J&J Editorial, a publishing firm located in Cary, NC, and part of the Wiley publishing company. Her portfolio includes journals with the American Chemical Society and the American Medical Writers Association.
Rachel is a graduate of North Carolina State University, with a master’s degree in English Literature. In fact, I met Rachel while attending graduate school, so it was great to delve into her career since and learn more about a different side of the higher education industry.
Indeed, there have been several alumni of NC State who have gone on to work with J&J Editorial. Founded by Jennifer Deyton and Julie Nash in 2008, J&J was acquired by John Wiley & Sons publishing company in 2021. All told, J&J works with over 30 clients, from publishers to academic societies, helping to administer over 100 journals.
J&J’s growth has tracked alongside the growth of publishing across higher education, with the advent of new journals, new programs, and more academics seeking publication.
We’re very aware of the publish or perish environment that is growing increasingly prevalent. ~ Rachel Mosher
J&J’s editorial process includes three divisions: editorial; content management, including copy editing and production services; and system support, which focuses on technical support. Rachel falls within the editorial division and currently works on three journals. Working within a specific ‘pod,’ Rachel is able to develop specialized knowledge as it relates to a given discipline, as each society and their respective journal operates as an individual client with individual processes.
When it comes to the peer review process, there are two sides to consider: submissions and reviews. While some journals and organizations offer resources on the process, most scholars learn by doing.
When an article is submitted to a journal, the first step is to determine whether or not it will advance to peer review. This decision is based on the scope of the journal and the fit of the article. During peer review, reviewers offer comments regarding form and content, along with providing a recommendation on how the journal should proceed with the manuscript.
Once an article passes through peer review, assigned editors evaluate the subject-matter content of the reviews. The editorial office makes sure that reviewers are abiding by the guidelines, that there is no inflammatory language, and that reviewers aren’t violating any ethical guidelines. Then, the editorial office processes the decision indicated by the editor: rejection, transfer, minor or major revision, acceptance. Following this decision, authors are able to respond to the comments or suggestions of reviewers. Without being adversarial, authors can advocate for themselves and justify their choices. It is important for authors to be thorough in these responses, as they can be viewed by both the reviewers and editors.
Some circumstances where an author might push back is if they feel the reviewer fundamentally did not understand their work, they do not think the comments are relevant to their work, they suspect potential bias from the reviewer due to ideological or personal differences, or they feel that a reviewer’s comments do not necessarily align with the decision recommendation. For example, an author may see that a reviewer recommended rejection, but believe that their comments could be addressed through a standard revision.
In terms of a timeline, Rachel’s journals operate with peer reviewers responding to an invitation within a week, and providing feedback within two weeks. The process is often longer for more heavily science-based journals.
We want authors and faculty members and academics to be able to know the status of their manuscript as quickly as possible and to make revisions as quickly as possible. Because research is constantly evolving. ~ Rachel Mosher
To ensure a smooth process, Rachel suggests that authors acquaint themselves with guidelines for individual journals. There are plenty of wheels at work, so when directions are followed from the start, it makes the process more efficient, with the timeline from initial submission to being seen by the editor much faster with less back and forth.
Of course, even when there are no hiccups, the process is long.
So whether an editor, author, or peer reviewer, be patient, show a little grace, because there’s people on the other side of the screen, all of whom want to do their best to help. ~ Rachel Mosher
Rachel shares that many early career faculty participate in the process, as it is a good way to contribute to the field. It also offers them a chance to see the process up close for when they submit their own article. Journals understand that academics are busy, so welcome faculty to suggest others to serve as a reviewer in their place. Authors can also suggest a list of preferred peer reviewers who are subject-matter experts.
Like other service opportunities within higher education, peer review is often unpaid or unacknowledged. With that in mind, some journals recognize their reviewers through annual celebrations, although it may be difficult when it is meant to be anonymous. Others enable reviewers to link the journal they worked with to their ORCID ID, so even if the specific article isn’t mentioned, their work is acknowledged. And with open review becoming more common, people can more easily share information about their role in the process.
AI is not part of the peer review process for the journals Rachel works on – indeed, the Committee on Publication Ethics has suggested it not be used in peer review. That being said, AI is sometimes utilized to help identify potential peer reviewers. In order to locate subject-matter experts, AI can comb large databases, like PubMed and Google Scholar, as well as internal system databases that contain information regarding previous publications and peer review activities.
Rachel’s journals recognize that publishing is an exciting accomplishment for an academic, and encourage authors to promote their articles. In fact, publishers have robust social media offices and often ask for an author’s Twitter or Linked In account so that when the journal is promoting the article they can include the author.
As publishers, we recognize how important this work is to our authors. We really do. This is oftentimes their life’s work. ~ Rachel Mosher
With that in mind, authors should also recognize that while editors are here to help the process go as quickly as possible, the process is long and sometimes things happen. An author might have a couple articles waiting for publication, while an editor is working on dozens if not hundreds. If authors feel that there has been an undue delay in the peer review process of their manuscripts, they can always contact the editorial office, who is happy to work with them and the editor to ensure things proceed as smoothly as possible.
And, as always, be kind and patient. Because regardless of which side of the process you are on, as Rachel reminds us, “At the end of the day, we’re all just trying to succeed and change the world in any way we can.”
For more information on the peer review process, here are some useful links:
Wiley Author Services: What is peer review? and How to peer review?
J & J Podcast: Peer Review Week 2023 with Kara Hansell Keehan the Associate Publications Director, Editorial and Content Development at APS (American Physiological Society)
We hope this content was useful to you, and please know that we want to support you. You can leave us a comment (if you have an NC State ID), or we will be following this conversation on X and LinkedIn at #NCStatePaperTrail and you can join us there. Looking forward to hearing from you!
- Categories:
