Finding peer reviewers is a constant challenge for journal editors, so, when potential reviewers decline review requests, it makes life even more difficult. But, reviewers have their reasons, and understanding them is the first step to overcoming them. Also, even if a request is declined, there may be a chance it will be accepted the next time.
This post delves into why peer reviewers sometimes decline these review requests, even though peer review is historically vital to the publication cycle. It also gives some novel ideas for overcoming these objections. As a journal editor, you can anticipate these objections, and as a reviewer, you might reconsider your objections and decide to get involved.
Lack of expertise
A top reason reviewers decline review requests is what they perceive as their lack of expertise in the subject matter. Effective peer review requires a deep understanding of the topic at hand. Reviewers might not feel confident in their ability to provide a thorough and insightful review if the manuscript falls outside their area of specialization.
This perception may or may not be true. If they are early-career researchers (such as PhD candidates or recent graduates), they may just lack confidence and need a little convincing about why they should become reviewers.
Overcoming the expertise objection
- Widen your recruitment strategies: Use specialized academic networks and platforms, like Reviewer Credits, to access a wider pool of potential reviewers who actually have that expertise. This helps you accurately match capable reviewers with manuscripts.
- Offer reviewer training and resources: Give potential reviewers access to training sessions and up-to-date resources. This can help them fill gaps in expertise. You’ll help build their reviewing skills and build their confidence in handling manuscripts slightly outside their main area of expertise.
Time constraints
Academics and researchers are often overwhelmed by their commitments to teaching, research, administrative duties, and personal life. It takes a long time to thoroughly review a manuscript, including reading, analyzing, and giving thoughtful feedback. Experience and effective reviewers already know this. Newer reviewers may have heard this.
This typically unpaid work can seem an added burden during busy academic periods or when the reviewer has received multiple requests. It may weigh on the reviewer’s conscience if they reject the request, but they do anyhow. It’s a legitimate concern and should be respected. However, it may also be an excuse or a misunderstanding.
Overcoming the time constraint objection
- Streamline the review process: Use structured review forms or provide clear guidelines on what you expect in the review. Reviewers will understand exactly what they need to focus on and can better budget their time.
- Offer flexible deadlines: A flexible deadline is a considerate gesture, especially during known busy periods, like the start of the academic year and conference seasons. You’ll show you understand the reviewers’ time constraints and make the reviewing task more manageable.
Conflict of interest
It’s critical to maintain objectivity in the peer review process. Reviewers must ensure no personal, financial, or professional connections with the authors could affect their judgment, and journal editors must ensure that reviewers disclose these conflicts of interest. Responsible reviewers should decline the request to uphold the review process’s integrity, while editors should make sure they publish sound, unbiased research.
Therefore, there is no reason to overcome the objection if there’s a valid conflict of interest. However, it can help clarify potential COIs.
Overcoming or confirming the COI objection
- Use a robust disclosure process: Naturally, you should require potential reviewers to disclose any possible conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. You can also help them to help you by giving crystal-clear definitions and examples of COIs.
Overcommitment
Thanks to their expertise, academics are often in high demand as peer reviewers. This can lead them to commit to multiple review assignments across different journals. If they have trouble saying “no” and aren’t great at time management, they’ll be overcommitted, leading to lower-quality reviews and even to tiring and burnout.
Conscientious reviewers might honestly refuse additional requests so they can keep their quality up and maintain their energy levels. That’s a good thing. The counterpoint is their perceived overcommitment may be a matter of
Overcoming the overcommitment objection
- Monitor and manage workload: If you can, use a tracking system to see how many reviews the reviewer handles and then limit invitations based on their current workload.
- Recognize and reward reviewing efforts: Through public acknowledgment, access to professional resources, or points redeemable in academic services, you can incentivize reviewers to manage their review tasks efficiently. They’ll feel appreciated and valued, which they very much are!
Workload management
This directly relates to the above time constraint and overcommitment issues. The demanding nature of academic work means reviewers constantly balance multiple responsibilities. A heavy workload, including ongoing research projects and teaching obligations, can leave little room for additional peer review work.
Reviewers might decline requests to manage their workload effectively and prevent burnout. After all, peer review is usually not compensated, so other remunerated tasks may take precedence. See the “overcoming” solutions above.
They’re not available
Reviewers are human, and, as such, they have personal lives. They may be on sabbatical or vacation, or they may be dealing with personal or family issues. During these periods, they might be unavailable to review manuscripts, so they refuse review requests.
Again, this may also be a matter of perception or timing. They might be anticipating an influx of work or waiting for approval for an extended leave. It pays off, if not now, then in the future, to be empathic to these needs and clarify the unavailability.
Overcoming the unavailability objection
- Provide advance notice and flexible scheduling: Giving notice and being flexible can help reviewers fit the task into their schedules while relieving some of the pressure they may feel.
- Keep regular communication and build relationships: Building rapport with reviewers, not just as resources but as human beings with busy lives, can increase empathy and flexibility on both sides, increasing the chances of your offer being accepted.
Discomfort with the journal
Reviewers often prefer working with journals with strong reputations and demonstrating ethical practices. If a reviewer isn’t familiar with a journal or has concerns about its integrity (e.g., its impact factor, publishing standards, or ethical reputation), they might decline your invitation to review, as they want to avoid associating their name with the publication.
Overcoming the journal discomfort objection
- Improve your journal’s transparency and credibility: Clearly communicate your policies on peer review and ethics, and make them easy to access. Promoting transparency about the editorial process and adherence to ethical guidelines can help build trust.
- Promote the journal’s achievements and endorsements: Highlights such as improved journal metrics that may reassure potential reviewers of the journal’s commitments to quality and ethics. You can also share positive testimonials from respected researchers to build credibility.
Language barriers
Language can be a significant barrier to effective peer review. If a manuscript is not written in the reviewer’s native language and they’re uncomfortable reviewing papers in that language, they may decline the request. Specifically, most academics will study English if it’s not their native language. But the confidence levels and actual language skills can vary widely, Language difficulties can hinder the reviewer’s ability to provide a nuanced evaluation of the manuscript. Moreover, if a non-native speaker also wrote the manuscript, it may be even harder to understand.
Overcoming or accommodating the language barrier objection
- Offer language support and editing support: Professional language editing or a preliminary review of the manuscript’s language before being sent for review can help reduce language barrier-related issues for reviewers while improving the manuscript’s quality.
- Accommodate their language: Allow reviewers to submit their reviews in their native language and then provide translation services into English. This can expand your pool of potential reviewers, allow for clearer and more effective reviews, and let you access a broader geographical range of insight.
Quality concerns
Reviewers sometimes decline requests because they’re concerned about the manuscript’s quality. Poorly written, disorganized, and improperly cited manuscripts make it harder for reviewers to provide constructive feedback. In such cases, reviewers might decline the request to avoid engaging with a manuscript that doesn’t meet basic academic standards.
Overcoming the quality objection
- Do pre-review quality checks: Establish a screening process for evaluating and improving manuscripts’ basic quality issues, such as clarity, organization, and references, before they’re sent for peer review. This way, reviewers can more economically use their time to focus on the science itself and are less likely to be off-put by the quality of the writing.
- Provide authors with clear guidelines and support: Make sure your submission guidelines are detailed and consistent, and provide resources that help authors improve their manuscripts before submission. Workshops, writing aids, and examples of excellent manuscripts can help authors meet academic standards, rather than burdening reviewers with this concern.
Personal reasons
Reviewers, like anyone, can face personal challenges or just need a break. Health issues, family emergencies, holidays, and other things we all face can prevent reviewers from finding the time and focus to do insightful reviews. These reasons may make them decline a request, even if they’re reluctant to do so.
The peer review process is vital for maintaining academic publishing standards, but it’s important to understand and empathize with why reviewers sometimes decline review requests. Addressing these issues and respecting reviewers’ time and expertise lets the scholarly community continue to uphold integrity and quality. It can also help turn a “no” into a “next time” or even a “yes.”
Overcoming or accommodating the personal reasons objection
- Offer deadline flexibility: Recognize reviewers’ personal challenges and be flexible when possible. This can lessen the pressure and make reviewers more likely to take part, even when they have other things going on in their lives.
- Keep communication lines open: Encourage a culture where reviewers feel comfortable sharing personal reasons (if not specifically) that keep them from reviewing. This helps manage expectations and can encourage those who say “no” this time to say “yes” next time.
A source for reviewers who say “Yes”
Reviewer Credits’ roster of incentivized reviewers is here for you. It can save journal editors, journals, and publishers a great deal of time and trouble finding reviewers who won’t decline requests and who are ready to review. Learn more here about how Reviewer Credits can be a go-to place when you need “Yes” in response to your review requests.