Comments
Saad A. El-Sayed
01 November, 2024
� AI could only lessen the early effort for human reviewers by assisting with preliminary checks, such as confirming manuscript appropriateness and ethical compliance. I concur with him.
� The need for careful editorial procedures is highlighted by authors who manipulate the review process, such as by pretending to be their own reviewers. Yes, I agree with him, and this occurred without discussing the specifics that cause issues.
� The ability to thoroughly and truthfully assess and evaluate a document depends on their background and research in various fields, which they do not learn through instruction or regulations. I read a lot of reviews that are devoid of all evaluation-related information. So, I disagree with his article's point.
� Paying reviewers for their time and experience is one suggested remedy. I concur with him.
Muhammad Sarwar
01 November, 2024Dr. Rosenfield�s insights into the future of peer review highlight essential challenges facing our field. The notion of financially compensating reviewers is compelling, yet raises concerns about maintaining quality and intrinsic motivation. While AI can assist with initial screening, human judgment remains vital for nuanced evaluation. Mentoring early-career researchers in peer review is an excellent strategy, fostering future reviewer engagement and upholding integrity across publications.
Bhupinder Dhir
02 November, 2024The article is very informative and deals with a very important topic.
Chunrong Jia
02 November, 2024I support the idea of compensating reviewers financially. No business can be sustainable without money drives. A US professor makes $1000/day and reviewing one manuscript is equivalent to one-day workload. If a professor is expected to review 10 papers a year, what's the motivation for him/her to work anonymously for 10 days without pay?
Mohamed Salah Abbassi
02 November, 2024
As you told, I believe that reviewer consider revision of article is a hard work, it need a lot of time, that is why sometimes he decline revision invitation or positively respond to the invitation and then he cannot finish revision in the requested time. Reviewers must be paid for revision, for their work.
Sincerely
Avaz Naghipour
03 November, 2024Due to the fact that some journals consider undergraduate or master's students as reviewers, which does not seem very desirable, therefore, in order for the articles to be reviewed correctly and carefully, it is better to use academic and expert people. If incentives are allocated for expert reviewers, we will naturally see the quality of the work.
Maruff A Oladejo
03 November, 2024The growing number of submissions puts immense pressure on peer reviewers, who play a critical role in upholding the quality and integrity of published research. As the demand for qualified reviewers continues to escalate, Rosenfield suggests that compensating them financially could incentivize more scholars to participate in the reviewing process. However, methinks this proposal introduces a complex debate about whether monetary incentives would enhance the quality of reviews or instead attract individuals who may be more motivated by financial gain than a genuine commitment to providing thorough and constructive feedback.
Maruff A Oladejo
03 November, 2024Rosenfield's editorial prompts critical reflection on the peer review process and its impact on academic integrity and quality. This conversation is essential for K-12 educators who are shaping the next generation of thinkers and researchers. By engaging with these issues, educators can better prepare their students for the complexities of the academic world they will face in the future.
Asst. Prof. Dr. ALi H. Wheeb
03 November, 2024Reviewers play a very important role in the research community by reviewing papers and providing comments to improve their quality. However, reviewers spend a lot of time reviewing papers, but they don't receive money. In my opinion, this process is not fair. so, the question is, how we can solve this problem in future?
MAAN Shafeeq
03 November, 2024
Dear Abeer Fatima
The respected editor-in-chief has proposed and referred to all possible solutions and suggestions. However, the primary reliance remains on human reviewers. A proposal to pay reviewers is currently being implemented in your respected journal. However, it is preferable to increase the amount of payment.
While maintaining the same journal policy.
Best regards
Prof. Dr. Maan Abdul Azeez Shafeeq
Afzal Muhammad Tanveer
03 November, 2024Review is an important task to perform, but peer review it becomes when a person reviewing is having the same/similar area of research. Which seems hard to found. There is need to improve Paper not to destroy the basic idea. I agree that a good peer review is time consuming so should be paid.
[email protected]
03 November, 2024Actually as I have seen your post,it comprised crucial issues to solve the constraints which shall face during under peer preview process.In my view, you have taken right measurement at right time.
Damte Balcha Gadana
03 November, 2024
It is good idea to come up the future challenges of the peer reviewer. Three option suggested are support financial payment to reviewer, use of AI (ChatGPT) & provid training to new scholars . In my opinion may be the use of AI by replacement of human most manuscript papers rejected. That is another challenge. So the use integrated way is best way.
Gamaleldin Suliman
03 November, 2024Indeed, the issue is challenging for all workers in the scholarly community. Relying entirely on AI tools is not acceptable, as it could lead to significant deviations from the objectives of the peer review process. On the other hand, incentives are acceptable and can take various forms. For example, providing vouchers that can be used for purchases on online platforms or waiving publication costs are potential options. Moreover, offering online short courses related to the peer review process is highly effective and can encourage more young scholars to engage in it.
Owolabi Tunde Ayobami
03 November, 2024While I completely agree with Rosenfield's perspectives, I also recommend that journals create and maintain detailed databases of potential reviewers, outlining their expertise, publication records, and availability to review. This would help match reviewers to specific submissions more effectively. Additionally, journals should streamline the review process by adopting more efficient systems, such as structured templates or automated initial screening tools, to reduce the workload for reviewers. Furthermore, establishing a feedback mechanism would allow reviewers to share their experiences and suggestions, enhancing the review process and making it more engaging and manageable.
Gamaleldin Suliman
03 November, 2024Indeed, the issue is challenging for all workers in the scholarly community. Relying entirely on AI tools is not acceptable, as it could lead to significant deviations from the objectives of the peer review process. On the other hand, incentives are acceptable and can take various forms. For example, providing vouchers that can be used for purchases on online platforms or waiving publication costs are potential options. Moreover, offering online short courses related to the peer review process is highly effective and can encourage more young scholars to engage in it.
Ameha Tefera Tessema
03 November, 2024
Thanking insightful script, I delve to add how we are going to surf the article reveiw at glance should to look at research title as it give loophole to see the problem,objective, methodology and possible solutions. Looking the research objective and problem in 360 degree dimension to see the nobility of the research is the basic methodology that help to find the basic gist of the research.
So I recommend for the scientific community the article reveiwer process to be supported by AI which enable us to search prior art.
Prof.Natarajan Gajendran
03 November, 2024The contribution of reviewers to showcase quality research outcomes is of paramount importance. The reviewers' role is to pick up the right research outcomes, question them, and improve further research. The contention is that their role should not be undermined by destaining it to the evaluation purpose alone as their comments mend and guide future research growth. Hence the onus of reviewers should be in parallel to the motherly role when comes to R&D; it cannot be bought on a price for a quick mix; as luring them on a price tag would result in Stepmotherliness. It would be very difficult to filter the genuine experts who work for passion from those who opt for money. But the challenge is how to attract and retain genuine reviewers. Here comes the consensual commitment of Publishers, Institutes and employers/ or project funders. There should be consensus within the academic social network of the above group. The journals should come up with a more transparent mechanism to showcase those reviewers and their contributions so that the recruiters/ funders will have to provide rewards in terms of promotion or job preference to them in R& D or project sanctions. The willingness of a reviewer to review helps them hone their talent further in a particular field of interest and also helps keep their mind refreshed with recent updates. Besides, it also serves as the scale of measurement of their commitment to the research field.
Roshan Lal Dahiya
03 November, 2024
Nice intiative as today's reviewers so called seniors are not willing to review articles or they may be overly and multiply occupied. So there is a dire need to train the budding scientists in their irrespective field of specialization
Anoop Dobriyal
03 November, 2024
Thanks for good suggestions from desk. I as a senior editor and experience with more than 20 years publishing a journal face similar difficulty in finding reviewers in various fields specially Physics, Maths and computer science. I am a biologist and work in the field of Fisheries and Aquatic biodiversity. My suggestion is we can make a pool of reviewers in different scientific field and take their consent for each journal member of ACSE.
I am ready to give my services in the field of FISH BIOLOGY AND AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY
Further we can discuss if very nominal incentives can be given for review or not.
Have a good day.
Dr. NAZIR Hussain
03 November, 2024This article is useful and emphasizes the importance of the review process. I agree that reviewers must spend several hours converting a draft into a publishable paper. For example, I have spent 2-3 days, sometimes, especially considering the quality of manuscripts submitted to various journals during the last 5 years. Payments to reviewers will not only affect the value of the review process but also enhance the expenditure of journals and in turn that of researchers. The help of AI in the evaluation process may prove good as a preliminary step that will help the reviewers but must not be adopted as a final one.
Masoud Ghodsian
03 November, 2024
Suggestions:
Emphasize Key Points: Highlight the significance of the issues discussed, such as the unprecedented rise in manuscript submissions and the crucial role of reviewers in maintaining the quality of academic publications.
AI Integration: Provide more specific examples of how AI tools can assist in the review process without compromising the nuanced understanding that human reviewers offer.
Addressing Fraud: Offer concrete steps that can be taken to mitigate academic fraud, such as improved verification processes and stricter editorial practices.
Mentorship and Training: Expand on the benefits of involving early-career scientists in the review process, emphasizing how this can alleviate reviewer shortages and foster a culture of collaboration and continuous learning.
Call to Action: Strengthen the call to action for researchers to accept more review invitations, perhaps by sharing personal anecdotes or success stories from those who have actively participated in the review process.
Samia El Maghraby
04 November, 2024Lastly, The depth, context, and nuanced understanding that human reviewers offer cannot be entirely replaced by AI, even though it can enhance the peer review process by offering quick evaluations, expediting administrative duties, and spotting structural problems in submissions. The best of both worlds could be achieved with a hybrid strategy that combines AI tools for initial checks and human reviewers for more thorough assessments. This combination can increase productivity without sacrificing the crucial quality that peer review seeks to attain.
Afrim Tabaku
04 November, 2024In my opinion, the best way to solve the problems of reviewing scientific papers is to combine AI for initial checks of manuscripts with human reviewers for more thorough assessments.
Dr. Mohd Kafeel Ahmad Ansari
04 November, 2024I do not in favor of using reviewing the research articles with the help of AI which is anyhow a contraption instead of man who an expert of subject area.
Dr Ameha Tefera Tessema
04 November, 2024
Thanking for insightful script on "The Future of Peer Review" , I delve to add to the literature on the way of surfing the article to review at the first glance should to focus on the research title which can have more information on the objective,problem, methodology and the loophole that enable us to see the final finding of the research. so once these information observed it is easy for the peer reviewer of the research to go through in depth the viability of the problem in order to assure the nobility of the research. the reviewer of the research should to have the third eye to look into the research benefits in all 360 degree dimension, otherwise the failure of the reviewer to find the real problem statement of the research in local or international can mislead the scientific society creating a bias on the research result.
From my research articles review trend, I always try to look into the research article first narrowing my thinking dimension to understand and then i look into the research article widening my thinking dimension to see the viability and reliability of the research problems, methodology and findings.
So I recommend the peer reviewer scientific community to apply AI in research article process to assess the prior arts related to the research and its originality which enable the research article reviewer to play plainly in giving valuable feed back to improve the research article nobility.
Assefa Sintayehu Kassa
04 November, 2024Thank you for peer review invitation, my field is plant pathology (PhD) and with MSc plant protection. I want to join for peer review activities on my fields.
Prof. Hussein Khamis Hussein
04 November, 2024
I am ready to give my services in the field of Ecophysiology and Toxicology. The ability to thoroughly and truthfully assess and evaluate a document depends on their background and research in various fields, which they do not learn through instruction or regulations.
SOUNDARARAJAN R P
04 November, 2024Peer review systems is an important component in research publications. The article deals with various issues like lack of manpower, use of AI, incentives to reviewers etc. However, use of students or scholars in the peer review system is a noval idea, but under the supervision of senior faculties. Giving credits in terms of certificates or waive in the publication APC fee can attract reviewers to accept the task and complete the review process. However, use of AI can't be considered as option.
Yusuf OZSENSOY
04 November, 2024The author has made some really important points. However, this was analyzed in the Journal of Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics but applies to all journals.
Abdur rasheed
04 November, 2024
I am not in favor of using AI for reviewing the research articles, in fact while a reviewer reviews a manuscript it is not only the matter of verifying/ reviewing a research article it is also a way for a researcher to learn and reach to the new ideas. Sometime the author of a manuscript does not know well to enhance that work further but to the reviewer of that work hit a novel idea that may make this work with further modification a good contribution to the welfare of the humanity and research literature.
However as for as the lack of interest of reviewers in reviewing the research is concerned it can be improved by taking some steps, every one knows the most of the research journals are open access and they are earning a lot of money but unfortunately they do not share a penny neither with reviewer nor with author of the research. So my suggestion is the Journal should do something that would motivate the reviewer to review the manuscript. Reviewers efforts should be materialize in the form of his/her income, one way that can be adopted is:
1. The reviewer should be given a share of income generated by that article, on the basis of nature of the journal, for example an open access journal should share its income direct with reviewer by some formula, whereas the journal that are not open access can also arrange a way to give money to the reviewer coming from that article after publication
2. The reviewer should be given an appreciation letter annually for the his services as reviewer.
Gamaleldin Suliman
04 November, 2024Indeed, the issue is challenging for all workers in the scholarly community. Relying entirely on AI tools is not acceptable, as it could lead to significant deviations from the objectives of the peer review process. On the other hand, incentives are acceptable and can take various forms. For example, providing vouchers that can be used for purchases on online platforms or waiving publication costs are potential options. Moreover, offering online short courses related to the peer review process is highly effective and can encourage more young scholars to engage in it.
Hatil Hashim EL-Kamali
05 November, 2024
Rosenfield�s solutions, such as financial incentives, AI assistance, and training early-career researchers, are valuable but lack depth in key areas. Financial compensation and AI use need a balanced view and guidelines to avoid quality issues. Academic fraud solutions and calls for increased reviewer engagement could be enhanced with specific strategies like identity verification. Structured reviewer training and streamlined processes would reduce reviewer workload sustainably. By refining these aspects, the peer-review system could become more resilient and efficient.
Dr Sofia S
05 November, 2024
Peer review is evolving. With more research out there, it needs to be faster, fairer, and still dependable. Ideas like open review can add transparency, but they also make some reviewers feel hesitant about giving honest feedback.
Technology, especially AI, can help speed things up, but we still need human insight at the core. And since reviewers often volunteer their time, finding ways to value and support their work is essential.
At its heart, peer review is about people ensuring good research. For it to keep up, we need it to be fair, inclusive, and balanced with new tools.
Sohair Aly Hassan
07 November, 2024
I agree and embrace any technological methods that have been included in our lives, but we must not forget that these technologies were created by humans, thus they cannot be included in all aspects of our lives. The reviewing process is a difficult assignment for reviewers since it requires specific skills, high experience, and knowledge to evaluate the scientific contents and presentation style, as well as how it is discussed or analyzed in light of extremely exact scientific data. So the Al has no function here, but it may be able to examine how the paper is formatted and the ethical issues, but no more.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, the reviewing process is a difficult mission, so it needs to be enhanced and made more welcoming with more plessor from the reviewer, so I suggest a celebrating from the journal via certificates, invitations from time to time to attend a fully covered conference, or even offering the reviewers a publishing support through the journal. All of these suggestions must be taken seriously into consideration.
Ekarika Johnson
11 November, 2024
I agree that many of Rosenfield�s suggestions offer practical ways to encourage more reviewers. However, I strongly believe that to ensure high-quality reviews, an attractive reward system is essential. Adequate incentives should be provided for reviewers to make this possible.
To address issues like academic fraud and instances where authors pose as their own reviewers, manuscripts could be assessed by multiple reviewers from diverse locations, with their feedback collated and compared. This approach, while requiring a larger pool of reviewers, can be facilitated by an appealing reward system.
Therefore, in addition to monetary compensation, other incentives should be offered to qualified academics, motivating them to contribute their expertise as reviewers.
GS Mukherjee
15 November, 2024
Reviwing of manuscript is a prime and essential job for publication of a paper; and the quality of paper largely controlled by the reviewers. Good reviwing is a painstaking job, and the reviewers role is golden. Reviwers critical comments and constructive suggestion help a lot to upgrade the quality of a manuscript before publication in a standard journal. Many times reviewrs showed reluctance to do the reviewers job as their role is not well recognised. A reviewer sacrifices his precious time and energy to do the responsible job of reviewing, yet remain unknown to the scientific community as they do the critical mental job behind curtain. So it is time to support the reviewers by arranging some microfunds or waive off the APC to support their research activities. Reviewers should be recognised by giving them preference to the entry in the Editorial Board. AI is not a solution as it cannot feel the subtlety and nuance of the content of the manuscript.
Abdelazim
01 November, 2024I am totally against using AI instead of human reviewers. However, the journal team can use AI to implement different suitability and ethical issues before sending them to the reviewers. Editors should inform the reviewers about the checks done by the journal using AI to save the time of the reviewers who plan to do the same checks.