The Peer Review Process: Perspectives of Reviewers

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v66i3.3201

Keywords:

peer-review, reviewers, agricultural education, satisfaction

Abstract

The peer review process is important for substantiating the quality of research. In this study, we examine the experiences of peer reviewers in agricultural education. The research presented in this article is part of a larger study that also examined the perspectives of researchers about peer review. We used a survey to collect data from a random sample of researchers who had published in seven different journals related to agricultural education. Data presented in this study are from a subset of the total respondents who self-identified as peer reviewers (n = 64). On average, participants had published 46 articles in their careers. They reviewed six journal articles and nine conference submissions in the last 12 months. They reviewed for four or more journals, with the Journal of Agricultural Education and journals outside our narrow discipline being the most common. Participants were more internally motivated to review. There was quite a bit of agreement amongst the peer reviewers in our study about the process they use to review an article. In order, the most important parts were (a) methodology, (b) purpose, objectives, research questions, (c) introduction/problem statement, (d) findings/presentation of results, (e) contribution to the field, and (f) theoretical/conceptual framework. Participants also described four fundamental errors that could not be addressed through revisions and thus would automatically warrant rejection. These include (a) methodological issues, (b) ethical concerns, (c) poor writing quality, and (d) lack of novelty or relevance issues. We offer several tangible suggestions for reforming our practices.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., & Holcombe, A. O. (2021). A billion-dollar donation: Estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6(14). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2

Bassett-Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. (2005). Does Herzberg’s motivation theory have staying power? Journal of Management Development, 24(10), 929–943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710510627064 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710510627064

Bolek, M., Bolek, C., Shopovski, J., & Marolov, D. (2022). The consistency of peer-reviewers: Assessment of separate parts of the manuscripts vs final recommendations. Accountability in Research, 30(7), 493–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2030719 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2030719

Chong, S. W., & Lin, T. (2023). Feedback practices in journal peer-review: A systematic literature review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2164757 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2164757

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2025). Promoting integrity in scholarly research and its publication. COPE. https://publicationethics.org

Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Prentice-Hall.

Elsevier. (2025). Generative AI policies for journals. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/generative-ai-policies-for-journals#3-for-editors

Field, A. (2017). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.

Fischer, E., Gopaldas, A., & Scaraboto, D. (2017). Why papers are rejected and how to get yours accepted: Advice on the construction of interpretive consumer research articles. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 20(1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2016-0051 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2016-0051

Flaherty, C. (2022, June 12). The peer-review crisis. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/06/13/peer-review-crisis-creates-problems-journals-and-scholars

Fox, C. W., Albert, A. Y., & Vines, T. H. (2017). Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: A test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x

Harder, A., Roberts, T. G., & Lindner, J. R. (2025, April). The editorial review process of agricultural education reviewers. Presentation at the 2025 AIAEE Conference, Inverness, Scotland.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. John Wiley & Sons.

Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adeli, K. (2014). Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. The Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 25(3), 227–243.

Kerig, P. K. (2021). Why participate in peer review? Journal of Traumatic Stress, 34(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22647 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22647

Khadilkar, S. S. (2018). Rejection blues: why do research papers get rejected? The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India, 68, 239–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-018-1153-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-018-1153-1

Lindner, J. R. (1998). Understanding employee motivation. Journal of Extension, 36(3), 1–8. https://archives.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb3.php

Lindner, J. R., & Lindner, N. (2024). Interpreting Likert type, summated, unidimensional, and attitudinal scales: I neither agree nor disagree, Likert or not. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 5(2), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.351 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.351

Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social science research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.04043 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.04043

Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 132–161. https://doi.orgconclusions/10.1002/asi.22798 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798

Mulligan, A., & Raphael, E. (2010). Peer review in a changing world-preliminary findings of a global study. Serials, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1629/2325 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1629/2325

Roberts, T. G., Harder, A., & Lindner, J. R. (2025). The Peer Review Process: Perspectives of Researchers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 66(3), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v66i3.3200 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v66i3.3200

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.

Sedaghat, A. R., Bernal‐Sprekelsen, M., Fokkens, W. J., Smith, T. L., Stewart, M. G., & Johnson, R. F. (2024). How to be a good reviewer: A step‐by‐step guide for approaching peer review of a scientific manuscript. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, 9(3), e1266. https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1266 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1266

Stephen, D. (2022). Peer reviewers equally critique theory, method, and writing, with limited effect on the final content of accepted manuscripts. Scientometrics, 127, 3413–3435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04357-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04357-y

Stout, D. E., Rebele, J. E., & Howard, T. P. (2006). Reasons research papers are rejected at accounting education journals. Issues in Accounting Education, 21(2), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace.2006.21.2.81 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/iace.2006.21.2.81

Tite, L., & Schroter, S. (2007). Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 61(1), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1136.jech.2006.049817 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.049817

Yankauer, A. (1990). Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? JAMA, 263(10), 1338–1340. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100042005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100042005

Zhang, H., Wu, C., Xie, J., Lyu, Y., Cai, J., & Carroll, J. M. (2024). Redefining qualitative analysis in the AI era: Utilizing ChatGPT for efficient thematic analysis. arXiv: Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.10771

Downloads

Published

07/22/2025

How to Cite

Roberts, T. G., Harder, A., & Lindner, J. R. (2025). The Peer Review Process: Perspectives of Reviewers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 66(3), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v66i3.3201

Issue

Section

Journal of Agricultural Education

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 8 9 10 11 12 13