The Why and How of Manuscript Review: What Goes Around Comes Around

Aside from conducting research itself, communicating it to the broader mathematical sciences community—as well as the general public—is the most important task that a researcher must accomplish, for the sake of progress within both the mathematical sciences and one’s own career. It is also the task for which researchers are usually the least prepared. Among other activities, communication often involves publishing results in journals, speaking about them at conferences and in university departments, and describing findings in grant applications that allocate the funds for further research. These mechanisms function like a barter economy. Scholars are willing to travel to other universities and give talks for small honorariums and a dinner because they know that their own departments will host a steady stream of speakers at the same minimal rates. Likewise, they are willing to spend the better part of a week reviewing National Science Foundation (NSF) proposals for a symbolic fee with the understanding that someone else does the same with their own proposals. This exchange prevents the NSF from having to pay reviewers an appropriate consulting fee and allows it to use the funds for additional grants.

In my experience, researchers have many misperceptions when it comes to journals, their different business models, and the responsibility of the research community in their continued operation. Here I intend to clarify the role of journals, the way in which they function, and the actions that individual members of the mathematical sciences research community can take to help journals best serve audience need. 

The vast majority of journals are published either by professional societies, such as SIAM or the American Mathematical Society, or commercial publishers like Elsevier or Springer Nature. It is important to understand that both types of publishers aim to make a profit from journals. In fact, professional societies typically depend heavily on publishing revenue for their general operations.

Journals normally have an editor-in-chief who is supported by an editorial board that handles submissions. Editorial board members are rarely compensated for their time and effort, which can be substantial; the same is true of the reviewers that provide their expert opinions on manuscript submissions. Depending on the journal, editorial staff are sometimes available to help process manuscripts until they are handed off to the production department. Journals may receive anywhere from a few hundred to more than a thousand submissions each year.

When an author submits a manuscript, the editor-in-chief determines whether it fits within the scope of the journal and decides if its quality merits further consideration. Next it is assigned to a member of the editorial board who evaluates it further and—if appropriate—invites reviewers. Once all reviews are in, the editorial board member offers a decision or recommendation to the editor-in-chief, who then makes the determination. In some cases, as many as three or four reviews may influence the decision. Of course, there are many possible deviations from this standard procedure. For instance, the editor may seek another reviewer’s opinion if initial reviews are divided. If the editors request revisions, the revised manuscript might go back to reviewers for evaluation. The length of this process very much depends on the people who are involved along the way, the promptness of their responses, and the quality of their reviews.

I therefore implore readers to be responsible members of the scientific barter economy. If you expect your peers to review your manuscripts, then you must reciprocate by reviewing theirs. I often hear people say that they are overbooked and do not have time to review manuscripts. If this is true, they should perhaps reconsider submission of their own papers to peer-reviewed journals, because in doing so they are relying on their peers to be less busy (unlikely) or to act responsibly and sustain the barter system despite their already heavy workloads. Some reluctant individuals might argue that they do not have any obligation to respond or be diligent since journals do not pay for reviews. But it is not the journals that are impacted by this stance — it is our community.

Here I present five rules for journal reviewing that will help anyone—not just new researchers—add value to the mathematical research enterprise and the associated community:

Rule 1: Treat other writers’ manuscripts the way that you would want them to treat your own.

Rule 2: Always be prompt when responding to inquiries from editors and editorial staff. Do not ignore a request to review a manuscript. If you plan to decline the invitation, do so straightaway; otherwise you are keeping editors from inviting other reviewers and unnecessarily delaying manuscript processing.

Rule 3: Make every effort to accept invitations to review if there is an opportunity for constructive commentary. This does not mean that the manuscript must be exactly within your area of expertise. However, you should be able to provide some constructive feedback to the author and editor, if only in the form of suggestions to make the manuscript more accessible to researchers within a related but distinct field. Let the editor know about your relevant proficiencies if you accept. You might even learn something new and unexpected by reading outside of your immediate research area.

Rule 4: Provide a review that is helpful to both the author and the editor. Odds are that the manuscript is not exactly in the editor’s direct area of expertise. If your report states that the manuscript should be accepted (or rejected) without offering substantial reasons, the editor will likely ignore it and the author will be frustrated by the lack of constructive feedback.

Rule 5: If any issues arise, communicate them promptly with the editor/editorial staff. Such issues include delays that prevent you from completing your review assignment on time, unexpected problems with the manuscript like a suspicion of plagiarism, or a late realization that you have a conflict of interest with the author(s).

Academic mathematical research takes a village, as the saying goes, particularly when it comes to dissemination. We are fortunate that we now have many venues through which to do so — from preprint servers like the arXiv where authors can post manuscripts without restrictions to journals that provide an assessment of the results’ quality and impact. As such, journals serve a role that is much like that of financial ratings agencies such as Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s, which rely on the community’s collective expertise as well. As the means of scientific communication continuously change, journals—in one form or another—will remain important outlets that are created and maintained by and for the research community. It is up to all of us to assure that they serve the community and meet its needs.