Learn more about peer review from the perspectives of an Editor-in-Chief, Online Publishing Systems Administrator, Associate Editor, Associate Editor Mentee and a Reviewer.

1. Behind the scenes of peer review
22 September 2021
10:00-12:00
SAJS Associate Editor
Prof. Teresa Coutinho
University of Pretoria
SAJS Associate Editor
Mentee
Dr Sydney Moyo
Rhodes College
SAJS Editor-in-Chief
Prof. Leslie Swartz
Stellenbosch University
SAJS Online Publishing
Systems Administrator
Ms Nadia Grobler
Scholarly Publishing, ASSAf
Reviewer
Dr Lungiswa Nkonki
Stellenbosch University
#PeerReviewWeek21 #IdentityInPeerReview
@SAJS_Official @ASSAf_Official
PROGRAMME
10:00–10:05 Welcome
10:05–11:00 Behind the scenes of peer review: from the perspectives of the role players
11:00–11:20 Panel discussion
11:20–12:00 Audience Q&A

2. Prof. Leslie Swartz
Stellenbosch University
Peer review from the
perspective of the
Editor-in-Chief
Behind the scenes of peer review
22 September 2021
Assigns Associate Editor
and AE Mentee
Desk rejects
Assesses
submission

3. Aspects of the role of Editor-in-
Chief
• To oversee the functioning of the journal
• To strategise about future developments and scope
• To take overall responsibility for the quality and
integrity of the peer review process
• To ensure that the journal lives up to its vision and
mission

4. Vision
To publish and promote the widest diversity of excellent
South African research for the local and global academic
community and inform policymakers and the public.
Mission
The South African Journal of Science is an open access,
multidisciplinary journal published bimonthly by the
Academy of Science of South Africa. Its objective is to
promote the visibility and impact of South African and African
research by publishing high-quality original research from
Africa or on African-relevant issues that will be of interest to
readers in any discipline and for the benefit of scholars,
educators, the general public and policymakers. It also
provides a forum for discussion of news and developments in
research and higher education.

5. Desk rejection
• Very high rates of desk rejection:
• Out of scope of journal:
• Geography
• Too specialized (not of interest to multidisciplinary audience)
• Competent but tiny scope
• Poor quality:
• Methods very weak (for example, weak reviews)
• Logic of argument clearly flawed (often: conclusions do not
relate to findings)
• Quality of writing/argument makes it difficult to follow
• Originality concerns

6. Probable desk rejection
• Because this is a multidisciplinary journal, I am often not
fully competent to assess the quality and originality of a
submission
• Strategy:
• Refer to relevant AE with my comments and concerns
• Generally will go with AE decision
• Will consider broader role of the journal in assessing this

7. Assigning to AEs and mentees
• A multidisciplinary journal stands or falls on the quality
of its subject specialists – though the EiC can assess
general scope and interest to journal, no EiC has all the
subject-level skills and expertise
• Generally, assigning to subject specialists is easy and
clear
• Sometimes, however, papers straddle two or more areas
so discussion/collaboration may be necessary
• Scope issues beyond the particular expertise of AEs (for
example: econometrics)

8. Area AE (AND MENTEE)
Agriculture and Forestry Teresa Coutinho
Archaeology, Anthropology and
Palaeontology
Margaret Avery
(mentee: Jemma Finch)
Chemistry Priscilla Baker
(mentee: Amanda-Lee Manicum)
Cell, Molecular and Health Sciences Pascal Bessong
(mentee: Sandiswa Mbewana)
Earth and Environmental Sciences Jennifer Fitchett
Engineering and Technology Michael Inggs
Organismal Biology Bettine van Vuuren
(mentee: Sydney Moyo )
Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy Amanda Weltman
Social Sciences and Education Chrissie Boughey
Social Sciences and Humanities Catherine Burns

9. Further roles
• To keep track of peer review processes
• To contribute to the development of scientific publishing
skills more broadly
• To represent the journal
• To write editorials
• To contribute to the ‘Front section’ of the journal
• Increasing role of ‘peer review’ even in ‘Front section’
• To depend on expertise and advice of others, especially
Dr Linda Fick (managing editor) and Nadia Grobler

10. Behind the scenes of peer review
22 September 2021
Prepares
submission for
anonymous peer
review
Nadia Grobler
ASSAf
Peer review from the
perspective of the Online
Publishing Systems
Administrator

11. Prepare submission for anonymous peer review
1. Check whether all
documentation /
information
submitted
Yes, it will be going for review
Check whether the
manuscript adheres
to our formatting
guidelines
2. Prepare
manuscript for
review + similarity
check
3. Assign to
associate editor to
send for review

12. Check documentation /
information submitted
Adherence to formatting
guidelines
• Publishing Agreement
o Confirms consent given by all authors
and confirm author order
• Cover Letter
o Declarations
o Suggested reviewers
• Title page
o Titles, author details, keywords
• Main document (incl. figures/tables/suppl.
material if applicable)
• Significance of the main findings
o Promote interest wider audience
• Author contributions’
• Transparency, credit and
accountability
• Acknowledgments
• Funding
• Document formatting
o Fonts, spacing
o Open file format (Word document)
• Referencing
• Figures & Tables
• Length requirements
Standardis-
ation Openness
Interoperability
1.
Author
Guidelines
Expedite
editorial
processes
Indexing
Etc.

13. 2. Prepare manuscript for review and similarity check
• Combine everything into a single file for review
o Body text, figures, tables and supplementary material (if applicable)
• Add line numbers
• Anonymise the manuscript
o Metadata
o Text itself
----
• Similarity check
o Case by case basis
o Look at the report in its entirety
o Plagiarism policy
o Citation, paraphrasing
o Self-plagiarism

14. 3. Assign to associate editor to send for review
• Move the submission into the review stage of the workflow
• Attach the prepared file for review
• Assign it to the relevant associate editor and include
information that might be of interest / importance to the
Associate Editor

15. Prof. Teresa Coutinho
University of Pretoria
Behind the scenes of peer review
22 September 2021
Desk
rejects Assesses submission
Invites Reviewers
Makes decision and
informs Author
Declines
Requests revisions
Accepts
Peer review from the
perspective of the
Associate Editor

16. Notification on email indicating a new submission
• Read the submission
• Familiarize myself with the topic of the submission

17. Select reviewers
• Reviewers suggested by the authors
• Reviewers selected from either the journal database and/or Google Scholar

18. Response from reviewers
• No response or declined to review
• Reminders sent
• Additional reviewers then need to be selected

19. Peer review report
• Thank the reviewer
• Quality of the report
• Need at least two reports
• Additional reviewers may need to be selected

20. Decision process
• When review reports reach the same conclusion
• May need to request revisions of the submission
• Email sent to authors
• Accept or reject the submission

21. Revisions submitted
• Authors need to include a response to the reviewers’ comments
• Manuscript may need to be re-submitted to the reviewers
• Accept or reject the submission
• Email sent to authors
• Manuscript sent for copy-editing

22. Dr Sydney Moyo
Rhodes College
Behind the scenes of peer review
22 September 2021
Peer review from the
perspective of the
Associate Editor Mentee
Desk rejects Assesses submission
Invites Reviewers
Makes decision and
informs Author
Declines
Requests revisions
Accepts

23. Agenda
• How do you become an Associate Editor Mentee?
• What is an Associate Editor Mentee?
• The role of the Associate Editor Mentee in
maintaining the quality of the journal (via
manuscripts published)
• The musings of an Associate Editor Mentee : skills
and lessons

24. What is an Associate
Editor Mentee?
• A Learning partner :
A lot to learn
Equality
Reciprocity

25. What does an Associate
Editor Mentee do?
Responsibilities:
To the journal
Authors
Reviewers
Readers

26. What skills/lessons do you
gain as an Associate Editor
Mentee?
• work with other Editor and Admin colleagues
(rapport in a team)
• ensure reviewer feedback does not contain
offensive words (etiquette in communication)
• listen and learn about trends in field of specialty
along with issues impacting authors and reviewers
in their workplaces and in their social contexts

27. What skills/lessons do you
gain as an Associate Editor
Mentee?
• understanding the editorial process makes you a
better reviewer and author
• exposure to new and exciting research
• editors are not gatekeepers of a journal but the
architects of it
• patience

28. What skills/lessons do you
gain as an Associate Editor
Mentee?
Lastly:
Enjoy the role – it is an honor/privilege to be an
Associate Editor for a journal that promotes
excellence in scholarship in a specialist field of
practice or discipline

29. Dr Lungiswa Nkonki
Division of Health System and Public Health
Department of Global Health
Stellenbosch University
Behind the scenes of peer review
22 September 2021
Peer review from the perspective of the Reviewer

30. Who to peer review for?
Should I agree to peer review this
paper?
Why do I peer review a manuscripts?
Service to academia
National and international
standing
Thematic/field area
Methodological expertise
Time
National journal
Regional journal
International journal
Journal with high impact factor
Some journal offer incentive
(e.g. discount on publication
cost

31. Structure of the report
• Some journals have a checklist and a structured
reporting formatt
• Comment on the importance of the topic in the
topic
• The scope of cited literature
• Methodological rigor
• Key findings and interpretation of findings
• Discussion and limitation of the study

32. Do Don’t
Write a concise report and provide a
summary of the research and your
overall impression
Accept peer review if you will not have
sufficient time to critically appraise the
manuscript
Indicate major and minor revisions Use the review to promote your own
work
Provide constructive comments and be
professional and respectful
Edit the manuscript (i.e., focus on typos
and grammar)
State your own limitations Request additional work that is out of
the scope of the study

33. Thank you