The Importance of the Journal's Reviewers

In a public letter prominent geographer and editor, Nigel Thrift (2011), observes the growing problem of the reluctance of academics to review submissions for publication in journals. Thrift guesses at three explanations for this reluctance: the proliferation of journals, competing requests from research bodies to review funding applications, and the burden of workload in universities more generally. Thrift's note refers us to an editorial in Environment and Planning D by Stuart Elden (2008). Both Elden and Thrift emphasise the importance of reciprocity to the survival of academic journals: that receiving the benefits of being published in a peer-reviewed journal requires agreement to act as a reviewer. Elden translates this duty into a ‘rule’ that academics should review three times as many papers as they submit. The reason for this editorial is that the editors of your journal also notice a high level of refusal of requests to review submitted articles. In the last 12 months, the journal received 92 full paper submissions. Each required at least two reviewers. Each reviewer provided a full assessment and often a second assessment after a revised submission. These assessments are read closely by the editors who then provide their own detailed advice to authors. It is important to remember that this intense scrutiny and advice process involves freely-given labour. Neither reviewers nor editors are paid for the work they perform. Thrift describes this generosity as an act of reciprocity. Elden discusses it as an example of an exchange economy. These are important observations, which we see as needing promulgation across the academy at a time when the pressures for individualised achievement seem to outstrip motivations for collective endeavour. Importantly, then, the editors offer our sincere thanks to the team of reviewers that consistently and willingly provides reviews of the highest quality. Our further contribution is to make reference to some recent developments in publishing and to explore briefly what they mean for the peer-review process. At a recent in-house workshop, Wiley Blackwell senior executive, Philip Carpenter, constructed scenarios for academic publishing based on two dimensions. One is the rising mobility of an atomised knowledge consumer such that research is most valued when it is available online at the point of need; for example, by a field-based scientist on observing a weird ecosystem phenomenon. The other is a research world where high-impact material has a circulatory value beyond what traditional society journals have been capable of delivering. Demand for wider, more rapid circulation of new knowledge is pushed also by funding bodies eager for adoption of open access dissemination platforms. Carpenter proposed that an imaginable resolution to these pressures is a commercial publishing model similar to i-Tunes. In this scenario, peer reviewing could be outsourced to expert panels on a fee-for-service basis with successful authors earning fees based on download and citation rates. The financial and reputational benefits to a small number of highly-read authors would be immense. For the majority of researchers, though, getting published would resemble the experience of an unknown, underfunded ‘indie’ music maker. Certainly, there is the need for the journals of learned societies – like Geographical Research and the Institute of Australian Geographers – to better embrace on-line and mobile production and dissemination technologies. But along the way we need to be careful not to discard the shared responsibilities and benefits that flow from having collective organisations and collectivised journals central to the way we work and publish. Of course, this means that our high performance academics need to remain committed to these platforms. We need also ensure that every academic with meritorious research manuscripts has access to them. Quality and availability thus go hand in hand. Some might say such integration rewards mediocrity and impedes excellence. Our view, however, is that excellence comes most often when it draws on a diverse research community that is numerous and active. It is increasingly difficult to nominate segments of academia where diverse platforms, like the societies' research journals, remain dominant. And it would be foolish to assume our journal, Geographical Research, is assured of another 50 years of prominent publication. Its survival requires we each play a nurturing role. Reviewing a fellow academic's work is part of this responsibility

Duty · Economics · Generosity · Geographer · Management · Notice · Operations research · Political science · Public relations · Scrutiny · Social science · Sociology · Workload · Engineering · Law · Publishing and Scholarly Communication