© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Reviewers Are Critical to the Peer Review Process
American Journal of Audiology
Despite its inherent weaknesses, peer review is one of the few mechanisms available to safeguard the integrity of our research and clinical base. The peer review of manuscripts cannot ensure that all of the information in our literature is accurate and valid, but it does limit the number of publications with fatal conceptual or methodological flaws. Furthermore, the quality and clarity of most manuscripts are substantively improved by the peer review process. It can be a very frustrating process for authors (as well as associate editors and editors), but most manuscripts are better in content and presentation after reviewer feedback and revision. It is easy to argue that the current peer review process includes bias, because it obviously does. Moreover, the bias in the process has consequences. It can suppress creativity and limit the publication of outcomes, theories, and concepts that do not conform to current paradigms. It often discourages novice investigators who have new ideas, and it can stifle the work of researchers who are sensitive to criticism. It allows some experimental and clinical approaches to dominate the literature, while other legitimate approaches languish. It also has consequences for securing grants and obtaining promotion and tenure. You only have to go to your favorite Internet search engine and type in "peer review broken" to find a host of science blogs in which the problems with peer review have been discussed extensively.
A major threat to the integrity of the audiology and speech-language pathology literatures is the limited number of researchers and clinicians who are willing to review manuscripts. Most associate editors and editors rely heavily on the opinion of their expert reviewers, and if only a limited number of people are willing to review manuscripts, the peer review process becomes needlessly biased. It is not unusual for associate editors to invite six to eight people in order to find two or three willing reviewers. Consequently, associate editors and editors often develop a group of reviewers who they can rely on to review manuscripts quickly and provide thorough and thoughtful feedback. Yet, limiting the number and range of reviewers has real disadvantages. It can distort the reputation of journals and result in excessive topic dominance and limitations on the types of papers published. It also can lead to reviewer burnout and even breakdown in professional relationships.
Relying on a limited number of reviewers should not be necessary. Just in the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) membership there is a sufficient number of potential reviewers to support the hearing and audiology manuscripts submitted to the ASHA journals. At the end of 2009, ASHA had 13,100 members with an audiology background (ASHA, 2010). Assuming 11% of the audiology membership holds a PhD (based on the 2008 Audiology Survey; ASHA, 2008), then about 1,440 of our members should have the minimum level of research training needed to review most hearing-related manuscripts. In 2009, 30 original manuscripts were submitted to American Journal of Audiology, and 67 were submitted to the hearing section of the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. So, based on the ASHA membership and the previous submission rates, there should be about 15 available reviewers per manuscript per year. When nonmembers and researchers and clinicians from related fields are added, the number becomes more substantial.
I do acknowledge that most of you have a great deal on your plates, and that in addition to the ASHA journals there are a number of hearing and audiology journals that request your efforts, but please keep in mind that reviewing for the ASHA journals is one of the most important ways to give back to the profession and to help shape the underlying science of the discipline. So, if you receive a request to review for AJA or any of the other ASHA journals, I encourage you to say yes. If you would like to become a reviewer and have yet to be invited, feel free to contact me or any of the AJA associate editors. You also can register yourself in the journal's online peer review system, ScholarOne Manuscripts, so that you are listed in the journal's database of potential reviewers (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/asha). For all of you who have reviewed for AJA, your time and effort are greatly appreciated. Thank you so much!
 Top References |
|---|
- American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2008). 2008 Audiology Survey report: Annual salaries. Rockville, MD: Author.
- American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010). Highlights and trends: ASHA counts for year end 2009. Retrieved from www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/2009MemberCounts.pdf
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Delicious 
Digg 
Facebook 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||