How can peer reviewer contributions be better recognized? Interview with Lilia Mantai
If you are an early career researcher, or are mentoring one, you’ve no doubt had discussions on how conducting peer reviews counts toward one’s academic accomplishments and visibility. After all, this is a high-effort undertaking, and mostly a voluntary one.
This year’s Peer Review Week focuses on the theme Peer Review and the Future of Publishing. And while we think of how peer review will take shape in the context of publishing, it is also important to take into account the value and impact it has outside of the scholarly publishing process. How do a reviewer’s contributions matter in their own academic journey once they complete reviews? And in which ways can recognition of review work be built into research culture?
I discuss these questions with Dr Lilia Mantai, Senior Lecturer at The University of Sydney Business School and Academic Lead for Course Enhancement, where she currently oversees assurance of learning and guides curriculum development and assessment design.
Lilia’s research concerns academic and researcher development, doctoral education, graduate skills, and employability. She has published in higher- and doctoral-education journals, including Studies in Higher Education, Teaching in Higher Education, International Journal for Researcher Development, International Journal of Doctoral Studies, The Australian Educational Researcher. She is a Senior Fellow of AdvanceHE, Executive Member of the Australasian Council for Undergraduate Research (ACUR), and Associate Editor for the Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) journal. Lilia can be found on ResearchGate, Academia, LinkedIn, or Twitter @LiliaMantai.
What role does peer review play in the career progression of a researcher?
Being on either side of the peer review process has its perks for a researcher’s career. As an author, it’s like getting a stamp of approval—your work gains respect and opens doors for promotions, grants, and collaborations. Feedback from reviewers, even in rejections, sharpens your skills. As a reviewer, you’re not just giving back; you’re expanding your own knowledge and gaining insights into what makes strong research. It can be like networking, making connections with colleagues globally.
Plus, it’s an honor, possibly leading to greater visibility as a peer reviewer, other invitations to review or collaborate, and it provides a deeper understanding of the academic landscape. Both roles can essentially be career-boosters.
Peer review has been an established process for long, and yet standardized ways of recognizing reviews as scholarly contributions have not yet been widely adopted. What are the reasons behind this?
Yes, considering how much energy and effort are invested by already quite busy peer reviewers across the world, this is quite frustrating. One reason might be the traditional focus on publications as the primary yardstick for scholarly merit rather than the work that goes on behind the scenes—the old problem of product over process.
Another factor is probably that it can be tricky to evaluate the quality and impact of reviews. Unlike papers, where you can count and measure citations, reviews don’t have clear metrics. Who decides what’s a good review, what’s constructive feedback, etc.?
However, there are practices that give hope for more recognition of this work in the future. Some journals offer reviewer-recognition programs, giving credit and even certificates to top-notch reviewers. Many journals thank their reviewers by name in their publications.
In your experience as a researcher yourself and as someone who has studied academic career progression, what are some effective ways for a researcher to showcase their peer review work?
Response: There are some websites and platforms that record how much peer review work you’ve done, which can be a useful reference to draw on when applying for academic jobs, higher editorial roles, etc., where this work is valued. It’s also generally considered a valid and an important contribution to your scholarly community.
If you have a website you can display that information there, too. If the journal you review for provides the option of acknowledging your work on their website or print material, I’d say yes to that. Use social media to comment or talk about your peer review practice. This will not only show your contribution but also raise the profile of peer review work in academic work more widely. The problem now I think is that it’s too private, too hidden behind the scenes, and it’s a lot of work!
Many PhD students or early career researchers (ECRs) tend to be initiated into the process of reviewing by being asked by supervisors to help conduct their own reviews. Do you have views on how prevalent this practice is and how often such contributions receive due credit? What can be done to better recognize student/ECR support in the peer review process?
Response: As long as supervisors do it as an educational exercise and not to get busy PhDs do the work for them, I think it’s actually a great way to build an understanding of what peer review entails, how it contributes to one’s academic development in relation to learning more about one’s area of scholarship, or how to provide constructive feedback, learn about different views and approaches on a topic.
I personally haven’t asked my PhDs to do this yet, but I think as an exercise to develop judgment and critical thinking in the student, this would be quite valuable. At the same time, it might improve my own judgment if I can discuss my views on the paper with someone else. I might actually try this next time there’s an opportunity and ask my student, “What do you think of this?”
In any case, I’d encourage PhD students to get involved and start reviewing papers early in their careers to develop expertise, and importantly get credit and build a track record!
Finally, how do you envision peer review itself changing in the future and how might that affect how reviewer contributions are recognized?
Response: I think, as AI is now increasingly used to aid the writing process, it will also gain a more prominent role in judging and assessing papers in the future. For example, AI assistance could form the first review cycle before humans apply their judgment. I also think the open review process I mentioned earlier will gain even more traction, as more academics will and should claim for their work investment to be more visible and acknowledged.
Such recognition might be in the form of badging, credentials, or an impact score, although I’m wary of introducing even more metrics to academic life. And these moves would need to trigger better peer review training, for example, starting with PhD students.
I personally would love to see much more recognition of diversity and wider cultural and geographical diversity in peer reviews. Considering how interconnected the academic world is, it should be simple to reach further across the seas to incorporate more culturally diverse views on the relevance, quality, and applicability of research.
Comments
You're looking to give wings to your academic career and publication journey. We like that!
Why don't we give you complete access! Create a free account and get unlimited access to all resources & a vibrant researcher community.
