Sage Journals Information

High quality peer review is at the heart of any academic journal. Whilst not infallible, and much-debated, it remains the mainstay of academic publication evaluation and is generally seen as an essential component of the scholarly communication process.

Sense About Science has produced a short guide to peer review that may be of interest to journal editors. Aimed at early career researchers, it explains how peer review works and outlines its various limitations. It also includes useful information on the different types of peer review. Download Peer Review: The nuts and bolts from their website. Please also see our Citation manipulation policy page.

Your journal’s peer review policy should be stated on your submission guidelines. It should be clear what type of peer review is used (e.g. single-anonymize, double-anonymize etc.) and if peer review varies depending on the article type (e.g. editorials and letters might not be sent for external review). It is also important to state if not all articles are sent for peer review, for example if they fall outside the journal’s scope or the editor deems them to be of insufficient quality to be sent out for external review. It is also good practice to include an indication of the likely timeframe for reaching decisions.

Where an article looks scientifically promising but is poorly written, you may wish to advise authors to withdraw and re-submit after having their paper read by a colleague, particularly if English is not their first language. Sage offers a fee-based English-language editing service for authors wishing to improve the language, presentation and formatting of their manuscripts. Visit Sage Authors Services for more information.

Single anonymized

Single anonymized peer review is a traditional peer review process where the reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, but the authors are not aware of the reviewers' identities.

Advantages

• Reviewer anonymity can encourage more candid feedback from reviewers. Reviewers may feel more comfortable providing constructive criticism without fear of damaging relationships or jeopardising their own careers, particularly if reviewing the work of a more senior researcher.
• Reviewers can review the submission in the context of the author’s previous publications.

Disadvantages

• If the author is known to the reviewer, the reviewer may allow personal feelings about the author or their work to influence their review. Other biases may also come into play e.g. around the author’s name, gender, ethnic background, institution or other personal attributes.
• Authors may feel frustrated or disadvantaged if they suspect bias or unfair treatment in the review process but have no way to confirm or address their concerns. Lack of transparency in reviewer identities can lead to feelings of power imbalance and hinder open dialogue.
• This method of peer review prevents direct communication between reviewers and authors during the review process. This limitation can hinder potential collaborations, exchanges of ideas, or additional insights that could have improved the submission.

Double anonymized

This is also a traditional peer review process whereby neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identity.

Advantages

• Double anonymized peer review minimizes bias by preventing reviewers from being influenced by the reputation, gender, institutional affiliations, or other personal characteristics of the authors. This helps ensure that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scientific merits.
• This method promotes a fair and impartial evaluation process. It allows manuscripts from researchers at different career stages or from underrepresented groups to be assessed based on the quality of their work rather than the perceived status of the authors.

Disadvantages

• Reviewers may still infer the authors' identities based on contextual information or recognize the work from preprints or conference presentations. This recognition could introduce biases, particularly if there are well-known research groups or topics associated with certain authors.

Transparent peer review

The author’s and reviewer’s identity are known to all. In some journals, peer review comments are published with accepted manuscripts, alongside the reviewer’s name.

Advantages

• This is a transparent method of peer review that allows the reader to evaluate the credibility and validity of the review process. This transparency enhances accountability and encourages responsible and constructive feedback from reviewers.
• Open peer review provides an opportunity for reviewers to receive recognition for their contributions. Reviewers can showcase their expertise, establish their reputation, and receive credit for their work.
• Open peer review facilitates direct communication between authors and reviewers, fostering potential collaborations, and enabling the exchange of ideas and feedback.
• It allows researchers, practitioners, and the public to provide their perspectives and contribute to the evaluation of research. This inclusivity promotes diverse viewpoints, encourages interdisciplinary discussions, and can lead to a more comprehensive evaluation of the article.

Disadvantages

• Some reviewers, especially, those who are in their early career stage, could be nervous about critiquing more senior researchers in their subject area for fear of negative repercussions on their own careers. 
• Authors may feel pressure to respond positively to reviewers' comments or may be influenced by the reputations or authority of reviewers, potentially compromising the independence and objectivity of the evaluation.
• Open peer review can discourage some potential reviewers from participating. Concerns about public exposure, conflicts of interest, or lack of time may limit the willingness of experts to engage in the review process openly. This reduced reviewer pool could impact the diversity of expertise and perspectives available for evaluation.
• Open peer review raises privacy and confidentiality concerns, particularly in sensitive or controversial research areas. The public disclosure of reviewers' identities and comments may inadvertently expose confidential or unpublished information. This can have legal, ethical, or practical implications, potentially leading to self-censorship or limitations in sharing certain types of research.

Post-publication review

This could take the form of comments or discussion posted alongside a traditionally peer reviewed published article, or reviews of preprints posted on preprint servers.

Advantages

• Post-publication peer review can engage a wider audience in the evaluation process. It enables researchers, practitioners, and the public to provide feedback, critique, and contribute their insights.
• The open nature of post-publication peer review enhances transparency in the scientific process. Reviews and discussions are typically publicly accessible, allowing readers to assess the credibility and validity of the research. This transparency can increase trust in the scientific community and improve accountability.
• The iterative nature of post-publication peer review allows for ongoing dialogue between authors, reviewers, and readers. Authors can address concerns, clarify ambiguities, and revise their work based on the feedback received. This iterative process can lead to continuous improvement and refinement of research findings.

Disadvantages

• While post-publication peer review can enable broader participation, it may still suffer from low engagement and limited diversity in reviewer participation. Many researchers may be hesitant to invest time and effort in reviewing already published work.
• Post-publication peer review may occur after the research has already influenced the scientific community and possibly even public discourse. Delayed identification of flaws or errors may cause delays in correcting or retracting misleading or incorrect information.

Transferrable peer review

Some Sage journals facilitate the transfer of submissions that are not right for the title in question (with the author’s consent), along with any reviews already collected, to other more suitable Sage journals. Visit  Sage Path for more information.

Advantages

• The author has the option to have their submission rapidly assessed for its suitability in another journal.

Disadvantages

• Some journal editors prefer to collect reviews from their own pool of reviewers and so the submission will go through the peer review process again. 

At Sage we are committed to ensuring that the content published in our journals is based on scientific debate and not personal agenda, is representative of our diverse readerships and that the language used in published articles is inclusive and sensitive to our communities.

Peer review plays a significant role in ensuring inclusivity. Consider how inclusive your peer review process is and see our guidance on  Taking action on diversity for some of the ways our journal editors can improve inclusivity in the peer review process.

Providing clear guidance to reviewers will improve the quality of their feedback, giving you greater support in making editorial decisions and providing a better service for your authors. Some journals will supply a form for reviewers to complete; others ask reviewers to comment on particular aspects of the paper. You might ask your reviewers to consider the following:

• Is the paper original?
• Is the paper clearly written?
• Is it methodologically sound; is the author’s theory or argument credible?
• Does the paper adhere to appropriate ethical guidelines?
• Are methods described clearly enough for others to replicate?
• Does it have results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions?
• Does it correctly reference previous relevant work?
• Does it make a sufficiently novel contribution to the field to warrant publication in your journal?
• If the paper is not suitable as submitted, is it worth developing?

Please view  Information for reviewers to see the sort of things you should be expecting a reviewer to be considering in their review. Your Publishing Editor can work with you to optimize the reviewer feedback for your journal.

In general, Sage strongly recommends obtaining two independent external reviews that have addressed the paper in detail, though in practice the number of reviewers you use may vary depending on your field, the particular topic being discussed and the quality of the manuscript (i.e. a borderline manuscript may require a third – or fourth – opinion). Where two or more reviewers have made conflicting suggestions as to how the paper could be improved, you can guide the author as to which you consider to be most important. Whilst the peer review process can support your decision-making, you are not obliged to follow your reviewers’ recommendations.

That said, it is very important that the comments authors receive address the paper's content in depth, providing constructive criticisms of the methodology, the research and its presentation, as well as any other suggestions or observations that might help them in carrying out a revision. If the reviews are insubstantial, focus solely on spelling/grammar or raise any other cause for concern, a further review should be sought.

The journal’s peer review policy is specified in the submission guidelines. For transparency and in light of increased public interest in the peer review process, Editors may wish to include provenance statements in published articles (e.g. “Provenance: not commissioned; externally peer reviewed by two reviewers”), especially if the peer review of a particular manuscript differs from the stated policy. Please liaise with your Publishing Editor if you wish to implement these statements.

For revised manuscripts, if the suggested changes are minor and if, on reviewing the revision against previous reviewer comments, you as the Editor feel that your own concerns and the concerns of the reviewers have been addressed to your satisfaction, it is not required that you send the revision back out to reviewers for comment. By only sending revisions back out to reviewers where you feel it is absolutely necessary you can help reduce reviewer fatigue and also keep turnaround times down to a minimum.

Communicating your final decision to reviewers is good practice and helps foster a sense of loyalty and community.

Reviewers make a significant contribution to the publishing process that often goes unrecognized. Sage supports a range of initiatives that acknowledge reviewers’ support:

• Many journals feature a ‘thank you to reviewers’ list in the final issue of the volume to give their reviewers some public recognition. Talk to your Publishing Editor if you would like to include a ‘thank you to reviewers’ in your journal.
• It is also worthwhile, when revising the composition of your Editorial Board, to ‘promote’ prolific reviewers to the Board to formally acknowledge their contribution.
• Sage supports Web of Science Reviewer Recognition, a third-party service that enables reviewers to claim credit for completed reviews. Anyone can create an account and submit details of their reviews, Web of Science Reviewer Recognition. Ask your Publishing Editor if your journal is not currently integrated with Web of Science Reviewer Recognition for this to be set up.
• In recognition of the invaluable role that reviewers play in the peer review process, Sage offers all reviewers 60 days free access to all Sage Journals as well as a discount of 25% on Sage books each time they submit a review. 

More information and additional resources are available, please view Information for reviewers

• Ask your Editorial Board to nominate colleagues who might be willing support your journal as a reviewer.
• Check the reference list in the submitted paper to find authors of related work who could act as reviewers.
• Approach your own authors who have previously published papers in the same area, though please be aware of any potential conflicts of interest.
• Include early career researchers in your search who may be keen to start reviewing – supporting inexperienced reviewers will build loyalty and ensure better quality reviews.
• Search relevant databases and repositories e.g. Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed.
• Sage’s Reviewer Selection Handbook has some excellent advice on how to build an effective reviewer database.

Sage does not permit the use of author-suggested (recommended) reviewers at any stage of the submission process, be that through the web based submission system or other communication. Reviewers should be experts in their fields and should be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. Our policy is that reviewers should not be assigned to a paper if:

• The reviewer is based at the same institution as any of the co-authors.
• The reviewer is based at the funding body for the paper.
• The author has recommended the reviewer – and under no circumstances if the author provided a personal (e.g. Gmail/Yahoo/Hotmail) email account for the recommended reviewer and an institutional email account cannot be found after performing a basic Google search (name, department and institution).