Insights into the manuscript review process viewed as a constructive journey rather than surviving hurdles

As we enter this new year, the editorial team would like to acknowledge the important and valued role of our community of peer reviewers at CERP. We are fortunate to have a wealth of knowledge and rich depth of expertise, representing all aspects of chemistry education research and practice currently, and we also welcome and encourage new reviewers to join our community. In this editorial we wanted to share our insights and expectations on the peer-review process in CERP to assist authors and reviewers (both old and new).

Once a manuscript has been submitted to CERP, it goes through a number of formal checks (scope, structure, content) before being assigned to an associate editor who then manages the process of selecting appropriate reviewers and providing feedback to the authors. On a very rare occasion, a manuscript will receive unanimous recommendations of ‘accept’ after receiving its first round of reviews; the more typical journey experienced by authors is that their manuscript will require between 1–3 revisions before acceptance. Indeed, if an author does not adequately address the concerns raised by the reviewers and editors, a manuscript can still be rejected after several review cycles. A graphical representation of a manuscript's journey in CERP is shared in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 A manuscript's journey through the CERP review process.

Advice for serving as a peer reviewer

The quality of the papers published within our journal is highly dependent on the peer review process. At CERP, we are thankful for and continue to benefit from high quality peer reviews. To maintain this standard moving forward, we would like to bring forth some general guidance for peer review for those who may be new to serving as a reviewer, or as a refresher for more experienced reviewers. If you are interested in becoming a reviewer for CERP you can register your interest by completing the process at this website (https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/author-and-reviewer-hub/reviewer-information/how-to-become-a-reviewer/). The journal publisher requires that reviewers are qualified to PhD level or equivalent, are a current active researcher, and have published recently in a peer reviewed journal of comparable reputation.

Reviewers are invited by the associate editor based on matching the potential reviewer's expertise with either the research topic or methodology used in the manuscript that is under consideration. Often, this selection is made by examining a potential reviewer's previously published work or the keywords entered when registering with CERP. Thus, we highly recommend that research experience keywords are entered carefully or kept up-to-date in a reviewer's profile. Manuscript authors are also able to nominate recommended and opposed reviewers (the latter is rarely used) during the process of manuscript submission. Although recommending reviewers is highly welcome, not all recommended reviewers will actually be invited to review the paper.

For reviewers, when considering the decision of whether to accept or decline the invitation to review, it is not necessary to have expertise in all aspects of a paper; often reviewers are selected to combine differing perspectives on a paper under consideration. Also, a reviewer can acknowledge areas of the paper where they did not feel qualified in the ‘comments to the editor’ section during the review. If the reviewer’s decision is to decline the invitation, this should be done as soon as possible to allow for the associate editor to start searching for another reviewer. Proposing alternative reviewers while declining an invitation is encouraged by the editors to speed up the search for new reviewers. Often a reviewer will decide whether or not to accept an invitation based on the due date for the review stated in the invitation. We strive to balance flexibility to accommodate a potential reviewer's schedule with the author's expectation for timely feedback on a submitted paper. The default request in an invitation to review is 14 days. If you are willing to review but would need a slightly longer time, please reply to the invitation and inquire if an extension on this timeline may be possible. Extensions are likely to be granted when the new proposed due date would represent a briefer timeline than the process of identifying a new reviewer, or if it ensures that a revised manuscript will have the same reviewers as the original manuscript.

Beside the aspect of timeframes, accepting an invitation may depend on whether a conflict of interest in completing the review exists. In general, if a reviewer has an existing or recent collaboration with an author of a paper under consideration, or any financial interests tied to the outcome of the paper, we request that the invited reviewer declines the invitation. If you are uncertain whether such a conflict of interest exists, you can also reply to the invitation to inquire if the situation represents a conflict of interest. In all cases, timely communication with the associate editor is important and benefits both the authors and the integrity of the journal.

Upon accepting a manuscript to review, when reading the manuscript, the reviewer should focus on two overarching questions:

• Is the paper of potential interest to a portion of the journal's target audience, which includes: chemistry teachers (tertiary and secondary), chemistry education researchers, pre-service teacher educators and public engagement stakeholders.

• Is the paper technically sound (as explained below)?

In evaluating the potential interest to the journal's audience, it is important to note our CERP guidelines which state “The intended emphasis is on the process of learning, not on the content. Contributions describing alternate ways of presenting chemical information to students (including the description of new demonstrations or laboratory experiments or computer simulations or animations) are unlikely to be considered for publication.” Ideally, papers should have applicability to multiple audiences, although it is acknowledged that the applicability of foundational work may be apparent only after additional research has been conducted. When determining if an article is appropriate for CERP it may also be necessary to separate personal considerations (such as ‘do I like this paper?’), as it is possible to advocate for a paper that you may not personally like if you believe that a portion of the journal's audience is likely to find it useful (Atjonen, 2018).

In evaluating whether a paper is technically sound, it is worth considering multiple facets including:

• Have the authors reviewed the relevant literature sufficiently to make a case that the current work advances the knowledge of the field?

• Have the authors provided sufficient detail in the research design and methods to enable other researchers or practitioners to replicate and to clearly understand the methodology and the nature of the data collected?

• Have the authors collected suitable data and applied appropriate analyses for answering the research questions?

• Are the claims made by the authors evidenced by the results presented?

• Do these claims serve to answer the research questions and contribute to the advancement of knowledge?

In crafting a review that provides helpful feedback to authors and editors, a useful approach is to organize the review around the points indicated by the aforementioned questions. An equally important aspect is that the review should be constructive and respectful in tone and focusing only on the work submitted, avoiding direct personal criticism or dismissive statements. Research suggests that less use of second person pronouns in reviews creates a more collegial relationship between reviewers and authors (Samraj, 2021). In being constructive, if a flaw is identified in the study, the reviewer can recommend how the flaw could be addressed through different analyses or additional data collection when possible. For thoroughness, a reviewer can be explicit in rating both of the overarching questions provided above, including the considerations for evaluating whether the work is technically sound. While thoroughness is appreciated, it is not necessary to make line-by-line edits throughout the entire paper. If there are persistent grammatical or spelling issues, a general comment for the authors to address these is sufficient, then the bulk of the review can focus on the technical quality and appropriateness of the work. If issues in written language expression prevent the reader from understanding the study, a comment stating such would help both the editors and authors.

Upon completing a written review of the work, reviewers are required to make a recommendation for publication choosing one of the options listed in italics below. A guide to how these descriptive ratings translate into a general recommendation is provided:

• Accept: The work is appropriate for CERP audiences and technically sound.

• Minor revision: The work is appropriate and technically sound, but either requires clarification or is missing a component, such as an area of literature to review, further description of the methodology or an additional analysis, which can likely be addressed by the authors within 30 days.

• Major revision: The work has a flaw which would prevent recommending publication, but it appears likely the authors could address the flaw while using the existing data collected. Examples may include reconceptualizing the research questions of the work or redoing the analyses with a different methodological lens. These revisions can likely be made by the authors within 90 days.

• Reject and resubmit: The work has a flaw which would prevent recommending publication and it appears unlikely the authors can address the flaw with the data collected. The research questions and/or data collected have the potential to be of interest but may require either additional data collection or a reconceptualization of the project. These revisions are expected to take the authors longer than 90 days.

• Reject: The work does not match the interests of CERP's audience, lacks a significant research or ethical component, or there are substantial problems with the methodology or data that cannot be addressed.

Ultimately, each reviewer's recommendation is useful to the editorial team who then makes a considered single decision for a submitted manuscript that is sent to the authors. A reviewer who recommends ‘accept’ may find it particularly challenging to write a review. We suggest a brief description of what was considered in the decision to recommend accepting the paper; this information can be valuable, particularly if other referees disagree. Similarly, if the recommendation is to ‘reject’ the manuscript, it is important to provide a clear and descriptive rationale for the basis of this recommendation that goes beyond the reviewer's personal preferences.

On rare occasions, manuscripts can receive opposing recommendations for publication (i.e. accept and reject). In this case, the associate editor can either invite a third reviewer or has the option to invite a reviewer as an adjudicator, often an experienced author and reviewer in the area. A reviewer in an adjudicator role is allowed to see both reviews and is especially invited to make a final statement based on the reviews, to assist the associate editor in making the final decision.

Advice for authors responding to reviews

Author response to reviews is a significant component of the manuscript review process that affects the turn-around time, the quality of the paper, and ultimately the editorial decision (Taylor, 2016). The format and the content of the author response both contribute to the efficiency of this process. Therefore, we provide advice on how to write a response to reviews, which we believe is as important as the guidelines for preparing and submitting a manuscript.

A chance to revise and resubmit a manuscript is an opportunity to improve the quality of one's manuscript. As such, authors should approach and consider reviewer comments as constructive feedback in the revision process. Reviewers will typically highlight common strengths and areas of growth (weakness) in a manuscript, and any criticisms are directed to the work or the way it is presented and not to the authors personally. It is important for authors to appreciate that reviewers evaluate an author's work based on their knowledge, scholarly experience and perspective, and therefore should keep an open mind as they read reviewer comments (Nahata and Sorkin, 2019). Furthermore, reviewers are volunteering peers who take the time to read and evaluate manuscripts as a free professional service. When the author receives reviewer comments, we recommend reading the reviews three times spaced out by time:

• First, for an emotional reaction – disappointment and a little anger if not frustration

• Second, for an evaluation reaction – identify what the reviewer specifically did not like

• Third, for a reflection – was it the way you communicated something that can be done differently?

This process can help one get over the initial, sometimes defensive reaction that might be clouded by emotions, which should be put aside before writing a response and working further on the manuscript.

CERP encourages authors to submit a written response by addressing each point that was raised in the review. The response should start with an informative text addressed to the associate editor who is processing the manuscript that highlights the most substantial changes and any other information the authors would like to emphasize. Writing the detailed author response can be achieved in two ways: by inserting a response below each reviewer comment in a document or by preparing a table with the reviewer comments in the first column. In either approach, it is important to provide explicit detail of how each reviewer's point or suggestion has been addressed and noting where you have made the associated change in the manuscript or associated files as applicable. The first method is writing the response in “text format”, which involves writing author responses after each comment made by the reviewers or by the associate editor. A representative format for this method is demonstrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 “Text format” of response to reviewers.

Sometimes, the authors may prefer to group reviewer comments based on the similarity of the points they raise, and write a response that addresses this group of comments. An example of an author response using this approach is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Example of the structure of an author response to a group of reviewer comments

Editor Comment: [Inserted verbatim]

Referee 1 Comment: [Inserted verbatim]

Referee 2 Comment: [Inserted verbatim]

Example Author Response:

We consider these sets of comments each related to the framing of the paper and the need to relate the survey results on motivation to academic performance. We have made the case for this need more explicit with the aforementioned addition to the section titled “Developing rank sort surveys”. We also revisited this argument in the “Rationale” section at the end of the first paragraph and in revising the second research question in line with Referee 1's suggestion.

The second method is the “table method”, which is preferable when there is a considerably large number of comments to address. This method helps the associate editor read through the reviews and responses, and find the associated changes in the manuscript quickly. An example of using this method as a response to reviewers is provided in Table 2.

Table 2 Example of “table format” of response to reviewers

Reviewer comments	Author response	Location of changes in manuscript
Referee 1
Comment 1	[Response text]	[Page, lines]
• [Inserted verbatim]
Comment 2
• [Inserted verbatim]
Comment 3
• [Inserted verbatim]
Referee 2
Comment 1	[Response text]	[Page, lines]
• [Inserted verbatim]
Comment 2
• [Inserted verbatim]
Comment 3
• [Inserted verbatim]
Associate editor
Comment 1	[Response text]	[Page, lines]
• [Inserted verbatim]
Comment 2
• [Inserted verbatim]

With each method, it is important to provide as concise responses and simple solutions as possible. We recommend that authors do not include the revised paragraphs or sections along with the responses in their detailed reply, pointing out the location of the revised text in the body of the manuscript is sufficient. Lengthy responses prolong and complicate the review process unreasonably (e.g., 25–30 pages of author response is equivalent to another manuscript), and also detract from being able to secure reviewers who are able to dedicate this time.

At CERP, we expect authors to submit a version of the revised manuscript with tracked changes, in addition to a clean MS Word or Latex version of the revised manuscript. Reviews can call for additions to a manuscript, such as more review of the literature, a deeper description of the methodology, analysis approach etc. It is important that one maintains a respectful and polite tone. When appropriate, authors may also express appreciation to the reviewers who complement a portion of the work or make suggestions that would strengthen the work (Annesley, 2011).

On any occasion when the author does not agree with a reviewer comment, the author should try to consider the reason that the reviewer may have taken the position that they did. Sometimes these instances occur as a result of miscommunication between the authors’ intent and the reviewers’ interpretation of the manuscript. In these cases, incorporating additional details could help clarify the author's position. It is important to keep in mind that the reviewers are also representative readers, so if a point is missed or not understood as intended, it is likely that it will not be understood by the wider audience, hence a clarification and explanation will strengthen the work (Carroll-Johnson, 2001). When such clarifications are made, be sure to indicate that no changes are made per the reviewer's comment, but additional information has been added to clarify the original idea. In other cases of disagreement with the reviewers’ comments, the author may choose to not make the suggested change but should provide a well-justified reason with as many details as possible that will convince at least the associate editor (Taylor, 2016). It is important in such cases that authors are not adversarial, and avoid engaging in rebuttals of comments made by reviewers (Gabbaï and Chirik, 2018).

On rare occasions, there might be conflicting comments between reviewers. For example, one reviewer may recommend cutting out content while another recommends adding more information. Typically, the associate editor will provide some guidance in how to address this situation. In the process of responding to either reviewer, consider how each suggestion will affect the clarity of the paper and your ability to communicate your work and focus on the suggestion that will improve your paper. Choose an option that helps make your work clearer and accessible to your readers. As noted above, justify (and defend your choice), and avoid pitching one reviewer against another (Annesley, 2011).

In summary, from the perspective of a reviewer or that of an author, the review process should be regarded by all as an iterative and constructive process where the reviewers’ aim is to support the author in clearly communicating their work to the CERP audience. The editorial team will respect that there are diverse perspectives and work to assist authors in responding to reviewer feedback – we often add points of guidance in interpreting the reviews. Ultimately, the work of authors and peer reviewers combine to create focused and high-quality manuscripts which serve the field of chemistry education.

References

1. Annesley T. M., (2011), Top 10 tips for responding to reviewer and editor comments, Clin. Chem., 57(4), 551–554.
2. Atjonen P., (2018), Ethics in peer review of academic journal articles as perceived by authors in the educational sciences, J. Acad. Ethics, 16, 359–376.
3. Carroll-Johnson R. M., (2001), Submitting a manuscript for review, Clin. J. Oncol. Nurs., 5(3), 13–16.
4. Gabbaï F. P. and Chirik P. J., (2018), Dos and don’ts: Thoughts on how to respond to reviewer comments, Organometallics, 37(16), 2655–2655.
5. Nahata M. C. and Sorkin E. M., (2019), Responding to manuscript reviewer and editor comments, Ann. Pharmacother., 53(9), 959–961.
6. Samraj B., (2021), Variation in interpersonal relations in manuscript reviews with different recommendations, English for Specific Purposes, 62, 70–83.
7. Taylor B. W., (2016), Writing an effective response to a manuscript review, Freshwater Sci., 35(4), 1082–1087.

---