For Immediate Release
As a scientist, I regularly receive review requests for different manuscripts. Thus, I know from my experience how much time and attention a good peer review requires. At the same time, as an associate editor for SLAS Technology, I increasingly experience the peer review process from the other side. The question is no longer only: Do I have sufficient time for this review? It is also: Who is the right person for this manuscript—and who has the capacity to review it?
These two perspectives have changed how I view the peer review process. For me, a good review process centers on three things: finding the right expertise, respecting the reviewer's time, and avoiding unnecessary delays.
In reviewer selection, scientific expertise is the most important criterion. First, I pinpoint the scientific question the manuscript addresses and the methods or technologies that play a central role. Afterward, I identify people whose current research aligns as closely as possible with these aspects.
My experience as a reviewer is quite helpful in this process. I regularly receive review requests, and some of them really align with my expertise. With others, I honestly ask myself: “Why do they ask me?” When a manuscript has little thematic connection to my research, one can easily get the impression that the invitation is based more on matching keywords than on a genuine assessment of my expertise. I want to avoid this as an associate editor. I want to make it clear why I chose this person for a specific manuscript.
At the same time, searching for the perfect reviewer is often more difficult in practice than it initially sounds. The scientific community is extremely finely subdivided. For a highly specialized manuscript, few people may be able to cover the full spectrum of the work.
I experienced this myself when I struggled to find suitable reviewers because obvious reviewers declined. I broadened the scope of the reviewer search and invited a reviewer from a related field. His expertise did not completely match every detail of the manuscript, but it was close to the central question. His review was valuable, especially because he brought a different perspective.
These experiences have shown me that the “best” reviewer is not always the one whose publication list aligns most precisely with the manuscript's keywords. Occasionally, a reviewer from a related scientific field can recognize additional aspects that are less noticeable from a very narrow professional perspective. A manuscript does not need to match one’s own daily research perfectly to warrant a worthwhile review request.
Another finding from my dual role is that declining a review request does not automatically mean a potential reviewer is unwilling to support the scientific community. We all know the situation: we receive a request for an interesting manuscript, but we don't have time for it. As an associate editor, I therefore try not to take a rejection personally. For me, it means that I have to find another suitable person.
Reviewers may occasionally consider accepting a request outside their immediate niche but still within their broader area of expertise. Because scientific communities are highly specialized, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a single person for every manuscript who covers every aspect.
An efficient peer-review process does not have to be very fast. A good review takes time. Speed must therefore never come at the expense of quality. We should avoid unnecessary waiting times. Once a review request is declined, I find an alternative as soon as possible. If an invitation remains unanswered, it may make sense to ask someone else rather than wait too long. And if a manuscript stalls at another stage, I try to intervene actively instead of simply waiting.
For me, that balance defines peer review: we need to make the process efficient without turning people into mere resources.
I also consider communication with reviewers important. A review request should make clear why a reviewer is selected and what is expected. Reminders and follow-ups should be respectful, but a friendly follow-up can be essential when a manuscript gets stuck.
Something I find particularly helpful at SLAS Technology is the check for potential duplicate submissions. As a handling editor, this information has added value: it can point to related publications and, in turn, to authors with the expertise I am looking for. This can be especially helpful with highly specialized topics.
This is a great example of how editorial support does not have to be limited to easing the administrative side of the peer-review process. Good information and tools can also help make better subject-matter decisions while saving time.
Ultimately, I believe that a good peer-review process can only function if everyone involved understands the other party’s perspective. As a reviewer, I want my time and expertise to be respected. As a handling editor, I strive to honor that. At the same time, as an editor, I rely on scientists being willing to dedicate some time to reviewing others' work.
No one can accept every request, and no editor will always find the perfect reviewer immediately. However, if we select carefully, remain open to related expertise, communicate respectfully, and avoid unnecessary delays, we can improve the process for everyone involved.
For me, this is the most important lesson from my work as a handling editor: good peer review is not about finding the fastest route to a completed review. It is about striking the right balance between expertise, quality, speed and the limited time of the people who make this process possible in the first place.
*****
SLAS (Society for Laboratory Automation and Screening) is an international professional society of academic, industry and government life sciences researchers and the developers and providers of laboratory automation technology. The SLAS mission is to bring together researchers in academia, industry and government to advance life sciences discovery and technology via education, knowledge exchange and global community building.
SLAS Discovery reports how scientists develop and use novel technologies and/or approaches to provide and characterize computational, chemical and biological tools to understand and treat human disease. The journal focuses on drug discovery sciences with a strong record of scientific rigor and impact, reporting on research that:
SLAS Technology reveals how scientists adapt technological advancements for life sciences exploration and experimentation in biomedical research and development. The journal emphasizes scientific and technical advances that enable and improve:
SLAS Discovery: Advancing the Science of Drug Discovery, 2024 Impact Factor 2.7. Editor-in-Chief Robert M. Campbell, Ph.D., Grove Biopharma, Inc., Chicago, IL (USA)
SLAS Technology: Translating Life Sciences Innovation, 2024 Impact Factor 3.7. Editor-in-Chief Edward Kai-Hua Chow, PhD, KYAN Technologies, Los Angeles, CA (USA).
###
Jill Hronek
Director of Marketing Communications
Telephone: +1.630.256.7527, ext. 103
E-Mail: jhronek@slas.org
