How I began to tango with peer review

For nearly 20 years as a teacher of English at the secondary school level, I don’t think I was ever bothered about peer review. In fact, it never came to mind. The few publications I had were almost all in local journals. But about six years ago, when I became a university lecturer in Nigeria, where I had to “publish or perish” in international journals, I began to tango with peer review.

My first encounter was delightful and even intoxicating. I had a poem accepted and published in an American journal! But, the second was a knockout punch. My first qualitative research article was rejected outright. Then followed a series of rejections. The peer reviewer had transformed from my dance partner to the bouncer at the dance hall. Peer review became an adversary. In desperation, I fell into the flattering embrace of grey journals which, sometimes for a fee and sometimes free, would have my articles published online with a rather perfunctory review, if any.

However, my perception of peer review began to change. I had a mentor – a Fulbright Scholar who served for about a year at my university. She was my first peer reviewer before I could upload a manuscript. She would use track changes to decorate my manuscript with red lines and callouts. Then, I sent an article to a journal and, although it was rejected, the editor provided detailed guidelines on how I could improve the paper. I began to have some acceptances. This emboldened me to also accept to review for my colleagues and blind-review for some print-only journals as well as online journals.

As a reviewer, I realise that I play a key role in ensuring research quality and fortifying the credibility of scholastic output. The anonymity allows me to be objective in my reviews. However, I had an experience that nearly truncated my activities as a peer reviewer. I was invited to review some articles for a print-only journal. One day, a visually impaired person was led into my office with a manuscript I had reviewed. The editor had sent her to me to receive guidance on what she should do to improve her manuscript – one that I had said was not publishable – and make it publishable. Although I chided the Editor for a breach of my confidentiality, I realised that my review should not only be critical but also creative. I should not only point out the wrongs but also how the wrongs could be righted. So, I still dance with peer review.