Peer review of manuscripts for scientific journals ensures maximum quality and reliability of the published scientific literature. However, peer review is a time-consuming process because it is one that is taken very seriously – sometimes a referee may need to read a manuscript several times, draft and revise their comments on it, and occasionally seek a colleague´s assistance for some specific point. Considerable professional expertise and diplomacy are needed to phrase the reviews appropriately and the experience is a challenging and demanding one.
On the bright side, not only do the authors benefit but many referees have commented that they have gained new insights, honed their skills of constructive criticism, and become aware of new ´cutting-edge´ work. In some cases, referees have even formed successful collaborative partnerships with the authors whose manuscripts they have reviewed.
Despite the significance of the peer-review process, there are limited opportunities for early career researchers to obtain guidance on the review process or even to be contacted to provide a review because of the need to first establish a professional profile. Yet many referees consider their own research work and writing skills are improved when they provide reviews of other authors´ work and find it very helpful to be able to see the comments provided by other referees – a form of ´self-calibration´ and a way to assess the degree to which their own review picked up the main issues.
As part of the commitment by Marine & Freshwater Research to enhance the quality of aquatic science, the Editorial Board is trialing an ´early career referee mentoring scheme´ to help referees hone their skills.
If you hold an undergraduate degree, are currently undertaking postgraduate research (Masters or PhD) or have done so in the last two years, and you have already have had at least one paper published in the refereed scientific literature as the first author, we invite you to email us at publishing.mfr@csiro.au with your full contact details including email address, your qualifications (and, if applicable, current degree and thesis topic), the details of your publication(s), and up to five specific topics in which you would feel confident to referee submitted manuscripts. We also seek an endorsement from your supervisor or employer that confirms approval for you to sign up for this scheme.
Example:
Greta Scott, gscott@treenvg.edu, Biological Sciences, Treen University, Virginia. BSc (Marine Ecology) from Treen University, current PhD thesis title ´Retention and re-cycling of marine-derived nutrients in headwater streams containing salmon´.Scott, G. & Robinson, V.H. 2007. A new technique to measure retention of marine-derived nutrients in the sediments of small streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 79: 234-241.
Topics:
- Marine-derived nutrient recycling
- Nutrient limitation in nearshore marine and estuarine environments
- Techniques for measuring nutrient retention
- Salmon ecology
- Headwater stream geomorphology and sediment structure
Email from supervisor Prof V.H. Robinson (vhrobinson@treenvg.edu):
I fully support Greta Scott´s involvement in this mentoring scheme.
Prof. Vincent Robinson, 16th June 2008.
We will then include you on a data-base of referees who could be contacted should a relevant manuscript in your selected topic be submitted to Marine & Freshwater Research. As always, there is no obligation to accept the invitation to referee a paper. Further, to maximize the benefit of this process to you and to ensure our reviewing standards are maintained, there will never be more than one early career referee assigned to a given manuscript. It is also important to understand that some considerable time may elapse before a suitable manuscript is submitted that lies within your field of expertise and requires your input.
If contacted and you agree to review, you will be required to provide a review within 3–4 weeks of accepting the invitation to referee. When preparing your review, we direct you to the Referee Guidelines, and you are welcome to seek further help by emailing the inviting Editor directly. Referee anonymity will be respected as always.
The mentoring feedback will consist of:
- general feedback – when all the reviews are in, you will be sent copies of the full set of reviews, and the editorial covering letter; and
- specific feedback – comments on your own review, especially the degree to which the main points seemed to be captured and the clarity and professional tact with which you conveyed your opinions.
Please feel free to email us publishing.mfr@csiro.au with further suggestions or feedback on this process. Also, remember that we cannot guarantee that your inclusion on this database means that we will contact you because suitable manuscripts in your field might not eventuate or be deemed worthy to send out for review.
