A reviewer's advice on constructing and delivering a good-quality peer review podcast

Transcript

A reviewer's advice on constructing and delivering a good-quality peer review

Daniel Ridge (DR): Welcome to the Emerald publishing podcast, three part mini-series on the peer review process. My name is Daniel Ridge, and I'm a commissioning editor at Emerald publishing. In this episode, we're looking at the peer review process through the perspective of the reviewer. To discuss this, I'm joined by Nnamdi Madichie, who is a research fellow at the Bloomsbury Institute. He previously held senior academic positions at the University of Kigali, Rwanda, University of Sharjah, UAE, and the Canadian University Dubai. He sits on the editorial board of leading journals for Emerald, and was recently awarded the 2024 Emerald outstanding Review Award for the Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 

So welcome Nnamdi. I'd like to begin by asking you why you agreed to review articles for ICE/ Emerald.

Nnamdi Madichie (NM): I've been an Emerald literati member since 2003. I rounded off my PhD around about 2002 and Emerald has been sponsoring quite a lot of conferences that actually got me into academia. So, I'm loyal, I'm loyal to Emerald. I find it very hard to say no to Emerald, and it's been going on for past two decades.

DR: So, what do you get out of doing a review? Why do you agree to do reviews?

NM: I think it's all about continuous professional development. There are a couple of things you take for granted. Knowledge doesn't operate in a silo vacuum. By the time you do reviews, you begin to see alternative viewpoints. You see counter narratives from your philosophical orientations and methodological propositions and theoretical underpinnings of your own work. So, it gives you a broader perspective what's going on in your space.

DR: I mean, you're able to see research before it's being published. So, is there an advantage to that? 

NM: To a very large extent, yes, when you see new viewpoints, you tend to question them. And one of the things we're probably going to get back to is you don't just review manuscripts without undertaking your own research. I tell you what right, people don't understand what goes on behind the scenes. For reviewers, the reviewers do twice as much of the works they're reviewing, because you need to be able to provide constructive feedback, and that entails undertaking your own research, verifying some of the claims of the manuscripts you're reviewing. So it is, it is part of CPD, like I mentioned from the outset,

DR: Well, what practical advice do you have when you are sitting down, you receive the article and it's time to review. How do you begin and what steps do you take to review the paper? 

NM: First things first, I think one of the things being an editor, whatever, or editorial board member or whoever sends out manuscripts for review, they have a very difficult job to do, so it's always in your best interest to try to either decline or accept to review manuscript, say, within 48 hours of you receiving that invitation to review. And you don't just dive into it, take a chill pill. Just step back a little bit. Reflect on it, and then take your time, check the deadline for the review. Normally, you're given a reasonable amount of time, say, about four weeks. So, what's the what's the harm in sitting back for about three, four days, accept to review, sit back three, four days, undertake your own independent research based on the topic and the manuscript in front of you. Then get to work. That's our approach to it.

DR: So, do you do track changes? Do you fill out a questionnaire. What are the practicalities of filling out a review?

NM: That's why I love emerald. When you do track changes, you're no longer anonymous. If you're using your system, it shows all your details, because I've been doing this for the past two decades now, Emerald has a particular sort of what you call a template, so we're looking at some of the critical elements, the purpose of the work, methodology, the implications, the findings, and, more importantly, originality and value of the manuscripts that are being submitted. Then think about also the implications, not forgetting another very important part of it, the limitations of your study. There's no study that is perfect. You must be able to put your hands up, give it up, and say, Look, this is not where it should be. There's also room for future research undertaking. So that's the limitations of the study, and that's the great thing about MRL. They use the structured abstract unlike many other journals or other publishers that use unstructured abstracts that don't enable you to actually tick those boxes.

DR: So, do you go through it part by part? What is your mode of thinking as you're going through a paper?

NM: The first thing I tend to do is, is to verify some of the claims, because some authors or some manuscripts start out by by saying, this is this the best, the next best thing after sliced bread? People think, because it's all about contributions and originality, and they make some kind of bogus claim. So, it's all about verifying those claims. So, verify research. Read, verify, that's my approach. In the first instance, I look at some of the purpose, I look at look at the objectives of the study, and of course, I begin to look at the key takeaways. So, what are you telling us that we don't already know? These are key, key considerations for me. 

DR: So, when you go through, what kind of comments are you making? Are you looking at methodology, literature reviews. Are you offering general feedback? Are you offering very specific feedback?

NM: It's a mixture of the two. Just like I said, the Emerald portfolio is very powerful because they give it a structured template. But then again, you give a general review. So, when you're given a general review, you're given a broad overview of the manuscript, demonstrate that you've actually read it. You need to be able to convince the authors that you've read their work. You don't know how long they've been undertaking that research, and they don't know how long it took you to review. It could have been 5, 10, minutes. So, it needs to be rigorous. So, key components, I'll look at what's the purpose, what's your problem statement? Where are the research gaps. Have you identified the research gaps? Are they really research gaps? And why should we bother reading your work? And finally, what do we do in it? So what is also is a key consideration. So in between those also look at the methodology. What it actually maps. It's just like the burger in the midst of the bun. Yeah, you got the opening section, which is one side of the bun. You got the burger, which is methodology, and you got to take away this other side of the bun, and you got your burger, or your beef burger, so to speak. 

DR: Well, so how do you feel when you turn your your review back in? How do you hope it is received by the author. 

NM: Most times, I tend to make it constructive. I highlight some of the weaknesses. But then again, you need to acknowledge some of the good sides of it. It's not just about the stick. It's a carrot and stick situation. So, acknowledge what they've done thus far to get beyond the desk reject because in terms of publication, normally, the editorial board looks at it and they verify whether it's going to survive the review process before they send you out to reviewers in the first place. So, if it gets past the desk, then that means it has a chance of surviving the review process. So, I tend to look at that, acknowledge some of the strengths of the manuscript. I identify the weaknesses, and I make suggestions in terms of how to breach or how to actually build on those trends, and of course, how to mitigate the limitations of the weaknesses in manuscripts. That's my approach to it normally. 

DR: And now you also write. And so people review your papers. So, when you receive the paper back, what is your process for reviewing the review, or for incorporating the content of the review into your own paper?

NM: I was hoping you're going to raise that question. You see, that's a good thing about most reviews or performing the duties of a reviewer, because you're on both sides of the fence. You're also an author. And you see, the thing is, I'm not just on both sides. I'm on three sides. It's a triangular sort of process. I'm an editor in my own capacity. I'm a reviewer and I'm an author. So, it gives have a well-rounded perspective of what makes for good manuscript. So that gives me a very good sense of what's to give in terms of feedback. So, I'll sit back when I'm reading the manuscript, I will say, Okay, how would I want to receive a feedback if I was author of this manuscript? What sort of feedback would I expect to get? Sometimes, I've been in situations where the editor, makes a final decision, irrespective of reviewers comments, but end of the day, if reviewers are suggesting rejection, the editor has no choice. His or her hands are tied. But when there is a kind of a stop gap, so to speak, and one says minor revisions or accept, and the other says reject, then the editor needs to step in and be the arbitrator. So I've been in a situation whereby the editor actually overruled the perspective, or rather, the comments of reviewers based on my responses to reviewers. How you respond to the comments of the reviewer, is that not every comment needs to be accepted, but if you can justify reasons for not taking it on board, then it makes great deal of sense. And of course, the editor has a decision to make on that.

DR: So, this relationship that you have with the author, with the editor. What are the benefits for being a reviewer? 

NM: Seriously, like I said, it broadens the horizon. It's, like a boot camp. It's like a workshop. A scholarship sort of retreat. It broadens your mind in terms of what's happening in your particular domain, especially if you're reviewing something in your discipline of research interests.

DR: If you were speaking to a reviewer who are going to be reviewing for the first time, what advice would you give to them? 

NM: I would ask them to read the manuscript. Think about the manuscript as if you're altering the manuscript. Highlight some of the gaps, and of course, what would you do if you are given this manuscript or given the same topic to write on? What would you do differently from what you what's in front of you? I just wanted to mention a very interesting article I came across. It's not in my field, but it's very instructive. And the article was published in a journal. It's a Routledge journal, and I'll just mention the authors. When Macleem and Carmen Bowman, article was published in 2024, very recently. And guess what the title is, ‘Giving and responding to feedback guidelines for authors and reviewers’. So let me just highlight - so there are two components to that. It gives some kind of advice for reviewers, and it gives advice for authors in terms of how you react to reviewers comments. So, the word or the acronym, they use acronym review to stand for this. The first R is read thoroughly and reflectively. The E stands for evaluate theoretically and methodologically. The V stands for verified claims and sources. I stands for identify strengths and shortcomings. E stands for engage with the content critically, and W stands for write clearly and constructively. When I saw this article, it was like looking into the mirror. That's exactly what I do, and I love this article, and that's why I had to put in public domain. It's what is worth reading and reviewing to be quite honest.

DR: Thank you for listening to today's episode. For more information about the peer review process and to listen to other episodes in our peer review miniseries, please visit our website by searching emerald publishing podcast series peer review. I'd like to thank my guests for joining me today and the studio.