Week 11: Peer Review

Hi Everyone,

First of all, I really enjoy reading the article of Lovejoy et al. (2011), it provides a great overview of the peer-review process. It not only helps me better understand the process, but also improves my writing by knowing what the reviewers will be looking for in my writing.

There is no doubt that peer review is a very valuable process in the scholarly publishing practice. It can improve the quality of the research and maintain high standards of the journal. However, the process, particularly the traditional one described by Lovejoy et al. (2011), causes much delay to the publishing and does not offer any opportunities to the researchers to respond to the comments.

With the help of the advance information and communication technology, the peer review process could have the potential to be more interactive, which would allow both the researcher and reviewer to communication with each other in real-time and allow them the opportunity to express their view and reach consensus. Consequently, this will speed up the peer review process.



Lovejoy, T.I., et al. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-reviewed journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42(1), 1-13.


1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One response to “Week 11: Peer Review

  1. Hi Liz,
    You bring up an interesting idea that could very well happen in the future about the peer-review process becoming more interactive since methods of communication are constantly evolving. My only reservation about this would be whether the reviewer-researcher relationship would be blurred. If the dynamic between the persons became more casual and friendly, would this hinder or benefit the process? I am a fan of the double-blind process because it lowers the opportunity for bias and, in my opinion, gives reviewers more space to be honest. Although I believe that reviewers should give constructive feedback and maintain a generous attitude in terms of knowledge-sharing, I would not want to know too much information about the person I was reviewing or the person who was reviewing my work. Of course if we were already friends I could probably tell by their writing style, subject matter, etc., however that could not be helped.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s