If you are publishing your manuscript in a journal published by a learned society or other not-for-profit organisation, you should consider that the editor in chief, the handling editors and the reviewers are members of your scientific community. The expression has been over-used lately, but ‘we are in it together’, and we have the common goal of bringing knowledge (however defined – as justifiable true belief, or actionable information, or even experience and anecdote) into a publicly accessible, trusted space. Most editors publish their own articles or have published extensively in the past, so they understand very well how it feels to have work criticised by reviewers and editors.
When I send decision messages on manuscripts that have been out to peer-review, I’m very conscious of the impact that the language and the frequently contradictory reports might have on the authors. Obtaining comprehensive, coherent peer-review reports that are consistent with the Journal’s standards of scientific quality is increasingly challenging. Some reports are difficult to understand, irrelevant, scientifically unfounded, or ignore conventions of the Journal, and a small proportion of reports is rude or dismissive. Nonetheless, the vast majority of reports are written by people who are committed to our shared values on publishing and have generously given their time to help improve the quality and veracity of our published papers.
According to COPE (2021) Guidelines, peer review reports are the copyright of the reviewer, and it is not appropriate to substantially edit a reviewer’s report before relaying it to the authors, without engaging with the reviewer and agreeing on wording. In no cases is it appropriate for an editor to change the meaning of the review. Relevant guidance is provided in the following extract from the summary of the COPE (2021) Guidelines.
As an alternative to editing the review itself, the editor should provide guidance to the author on how to respond to a hostile or unprofessional review and reference the journal policy that precludes editing the reviews, if applicable. This guidance could be provided in editorial parenthetic comments within the review itself or in an editor’s decision letter.
Given the potential delays in decision-making that communications with the reviewer might introduce, the policy of the Journal, when moderation of a reviewer’s comments is required, will be to provide parenthetical comment within the review itself as per the Guidelines. Peer review reports will not be edited. Complete among-reviewer agreement on all aspects of any given manuscript is rare. Parenthetical comments will generally be restricted to cases where a reviewer’s recommendations run contrary to Journal’s style requirements, where the reviewer has over-reached, recommends citing irrelevant literature, is clearly incorrect, or difficult to understand. In some cases where two or more reviewers make contrary recommendations, the editors might suggest a ‘journal-preferred’ response, but for most matters, it is considered part of the process of scientific validation for the authors to address the contrary recommendations and argue for one case or the other, or against both.
We are working on new guidance for peer-reviewers with the general aim of improving the experience of reviewers and authors, increasing the efficiency of the process, ensuring transparency, and maximising the value of the reviews for authors. In the new guidance, we will emphasise the need to always use professional and respectful language, and to maximise their instructive value to the authors.
