To mark Peer Review Week 2024,  Amy Lynn caught up with Professor Claire Cameron, Gabriel Eichsteller and Robyn Kemp, editors of  the International Journal of Social Pedagogy, to discuss the importance, challenges and considerations of peer review.

What are the challenges with getting a good peer review?

Editors: There are two main challenges: Good reviewers are often very busy academics and have limited time to undertake extra work such as doing a thorough peer review. Also, particularly for niche topics, it can be hard to find peer reviewers who have just the right mix of expertise. Particularly as an international journal, we rely on reviewers who have a detailed understanding of the authors' national context as well as thorough thematic expertise.

How do you select reviewers for each paper?

Editors: We often select editorial board members or previous authors as reviewers, so have built up a pool of reliable reviewers over the last 12 years. We also ask them for recommendations from within their professional networks. And we draw on our own professional networks within the editorial team. Every now and again, we need to do a bit more research to find potential reviewers who have the right expertise.

If you could give three key points for reviewers to consider when they are writing what would you say?

Editors: A lot of authors tell us that the peer review process hugely adds to the quality of their publication. And it helps us as editors make sound decisions. That's easiest when reviewers are constructive (pointing out how authors can strengthen their argument rather than critiquing what's wrong), are clear and specific (so that authors know exactly where their argument might lack focus or what they might not have considered), and focus on the content and contextual factors that an international with a variety of different backgrounds might need to be aware of.

How would you encourage early career researchers to get involved in the peer review process?

Editors: Ask to read a few initial submissions and practice your critical thinking skills, compare the review recommendations you would give with the review reports submitted to the journal, and then check out how these are reflected in the published manuscript. You could also do a peer review together with a more experienced colleague. Definitely play to your strengths, so you can approach journal editors and offer to review any submissions that are clearly within your area of expertise. You can also ask for guidance from the editors and for feedback before you log your peer review. Even some very experienced peer reviewers ask every now and again whether their reviews are sound. And don't worry about getting it wrong! Authors might disagree with your comments but will reflect on them (which is important), and editors usually appreciate different perspectives and interpretations, which enable them to make better publishing decisions.

How should authors consider peer review comments when revising their paper?

Editors: Consider them a gift and try not to become defensive. Instead, read them with a focus on how these comments can help you write an even better paper. Peer reviewers are reflective of your paper's future readers, so each review tells you something important about how your argument will be received and what you might need to strengthen. Remember that the world's greatest novelists go through loads of edits before their work is published. It's an essential part of the writing process.

This year’s theme for peer review week is Innovation and Technology in Peer Review. With the advent of A.I. tools to assist writing up research, do you imagine A.I. could be used to provide a good review?

Editors: A.I. can be really helpful in some respects, such as improving an article's structure and focus, ensuring that the writing is clear and concise, that spelling, grammar, referencing styles, etc. are correct. As A.I. has been trained on an incredible amount of publications, it can also potentially help interrogate an article's rigour. So it can add to the review process in several important ways. However, I don't think it can replace the professional judgment which a good peer reviewer can provide, because some of that is about the wider contribution to their field's discourse and how well this paper might fit into that.

Do you have a message for the journal’s peer reviewers?

Editors: You have helped us bring out the very best in the authors who have published with us! I'm hugely appreciative of your reviews - not just because they improve the quality of the papers we accept, but also because they reflect social pedagogical principles of being constructive, supportive and collaborative.

About the authors

Amy Lynn is Journals Development Editor at UCL Press. Her portfolio covers a variety of topics includes UCL IOE's flagship journal London Review of Education and the International Journal of Social Pedagogy.

Claire Cameron is Professor of Social Pedagogy at the Thomas Coram Research Unit, UCL IOE. She is co-editor of the UCL Press open access books Transforming Early Childhood in England (with Peter Moss) and Social Research for our Times (with  Alison Koslowski, Alison Lamont and Peter Moss) in addition to co-editing International Journal of Social Pedagogy.

Gabriel Eichsteller is co-founder of ThemPra Social Pedagogy, a social (pedagogical) enterprise supporting the development of social pedagogy in the UK through short courses, capacity-building programmes and strategic development. He is co-editor the International Journal of Social Pedagogy.

Robyn Kemp is Assistant Editor if IJSP with over thirty years of practice experience in social care and 25 years  specialising in children in or on the edge of care. Robyn is currently Chair of the Social Pedagogy Professional Association, SPPA https://sppa-uk.org

Peer Review Week