Abstract
Peer review is in crisis. But how did it get to this point and where is the peer-review process heading? Those are questions that most journal editors like me think about each week.
When I started graduate school, we learned about the critical role of peer review in the editorial process. The unwritten rule was that if you submit one manuscript to a journal, you would be expected to serve as a reviewer on three manuscripts—because your own submission would require the commitment of three external reviewers. So, we were acculturated into this academic system where all were expected to contribute for the “greater good” of the scientific community.
Under this model, reviewers provide their services on a voluntary basis without compensation. This traditional peer review model remains in place at many journals, including Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, despite growing criticism of the “unpaid labor” of reviewers (Hosking, n.d.). Many point out, and rightfully so, that time-consuming reviewer work is rarely acknowledged in annual reviews or promotion and tenure cases while at the same contributing to the success of for-profit journal publishers (Civáň, 2024).
Some history may be useful for context. The first scientific journals emerged in the 17th century in France and England with the goal of reporting discoveries in the arts, literature and sciences (Gastel & Day, 2016). The first peer-reviewed journal, Medical Essays and Observations, was published in 1731 by the Royal Society of Edinburgh. By the end of the 18th century, about 500 academic journals had been published. The “modern” peer review process, however, began in the mid-1970s as “a move toward greater equity in the likelihood of less well-known scientists having their work published in prestigious publications” (Hosking, n.d.). Hosking calls peer review today “an imperfect but still relevant pillar of scientific publishing.”
We all know that peer review is not perfect. The process can be slow, lack transparency, and rely on the trustworthiness of both reviewers and editors. Another issue is the lack of training on how to be an effective reviewer. Although most reviewers strive to do the right thing, many have never taken a course or completed formal training so their understanding of what their role is and how to deliver a quality peer review may vary. At JMCQ, we offer a year-long peer review training program for PhD students as a service to the community, but that training reaches only a small cohort of high-achieving candidates.
Furthermore, expectations may differ about what, precisely, authors, editors, and reviewers perceive to be quality reviews. The range of different viewpoints becomes obvious when you see any Reviewer 2 group on social media, with snippets of obtuse, rude, or condescending comments that are not only unprofessional but also discouraging to junior scholars in particular. Matters are compounded by the anonymity of the process when a journal follows a double-blind peer review, meaning that both authors and reviewers are unknown to each other. A single-blind review, where authors’ names are provided to the reviewers, is more common in the sciences but is also far from ideal because it may make junior scholars more vulnerable and privilege senior researchers (intentionally or not). Having the reviewer “unblinded” is another way to go, although that carries the danger of self-censorship and guarded critical assessment.
Let’s go back to the basic question: What is the purpose of peer review? From a normative standpoint, it is or should be about research acumen assessed by peer experts empirically and impartially. As Hosking notes, “at its best, peer review provides a measure of quality control for the scientific literature, helping authors to make the best case for their exciting new discoveries.” With the fast-changing methodological advances and increasingly interdisciplinary research, finding quality reviewers who are experts within a particular domain has become more challenging, however. As we globalize our research endeavors, we also need more diverse sets of expertise, not just methodologically but also conceptually (Mutsvairo et al., 2021).
These changes are happening as the pressure to get published—the “publish or perish” imperative—is as palpable as ever. There has been a sharp increase in the number of journals, including predatory ones, over the past decade. One observer noted a 47% increase between 2016 and 2022 in the number of articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science while the number of scientists over that period remained relatively steady. This same observer became so disenchanted with the peer review process as to withdraw from it completely.
Rather than refusing to participate, we might think about improving the existing peer review model and developing incentives, starting at the individual level, by recognizing constructive, substantive, professional, and timely reviews. But how can we incentivize quality peer review? Some journals have established “best reviewer” awards. Many provide automatic credit online on platforms such as Publons or acknowledge the names of their reviewers via email or in print, as we do below. Promoting good reviewers to Editorial Boards can be another incentive. Valuing peer review activity in annual review performance evaluations can also provide an important acknowledgment.
Although the existing peer review process is far from perfect, there is no clear alternative model to replace it at the moment. Developing an improved, sustainable, and valuable model may require the involvement of multiple stakeholders, from journal editors and academic publishers to department chairs and scientific organizations, as well as the commitment of the larger academic community.
Summary of Current Issue
With the increasing spread of misinformation around the world, it is critical to examine what methods can be used to mitigate its negative effects. In this themed article, Chan reviews recent research on audience verification behaviors and countermeasures against misinformation. Eight studies on the specific conditions under which individuals verify information and the effectiveness of various countermeasures are summarized.
The following set of articles traces the globalization of research and news exposure among diverse audiences. Rendon explored factors that influence perceptions of news representations of Latinxs and Hispanics by surveying 1,077 respondents representing the general U.S. adult population. The results showed that people who consumed news more frequently encountered more positive frames about Latinxs and Hispanics in comparison to individuals who consumed news less frequently. Demographic attributes, racialization, and ethnicity were also found to influence how often individuals reported encountering positive and negative news frames about Latinxs and Hispanics.
In a survey of 17 countries, Wu-Ouyang examined the effects of multiplatform social media use on news engagement and selective exposure. The findings showed that multiplatform social media use was positively associated with news engagement and that this relationship was moderated by fake news concerns. A direct link between social media use and selective exposure was not found, although there was a significant association for people with high fake news concerns. Finally, multiplatform social media use was found to have a greater effect on news engagement than fake news concerns at lower levels of public broadcasting.
Using bibliometric analysis, Comel et al. examine the publication trends of BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and their output in communication and media studies between 2012 and 2021. Overall, publications from BRICS researchers increased during this period, particularly in Brazil and China. In addition, the majority of publications from China were in Q1 journals. In terms of partnerships, close to half of articles published by China-based scholars involved collaborations with scholars in the United States.
Mellado and team studied the association between news beats and journalistic roles and whether they fluctuated across different country contexts. As part of the Journalistic Role Performance (JRP) project, the team of researchers performed a content analysis of news from 37 countries published in 365 news outlets. They found some support that the relationship between news beats and roles has remained stable across countries. However, political and organizational factors reduced this stability. Thus, a strong link between news beats and journalistic roles was shown at the level of news content, but only when shielded from external influences.
The next set of articles looks at media, trust, and empathy. Based on intermedia agenda-setting, Li et al. investigated how ephemeral websites and activism media shaped the discourse around gun control news outlets. The researchers categorized 3,332 domains from the Facebook URLs Share dataset into six media types. They found that the agenda of activism media (pro-gun control) and ephemeral websites (anti-gun control) were more salient on these sites than in conventional media. They also found that the activism media agenda can be undermined by ephemeral websites.
Moving to the 2021 German election context, Holtrup et al. examined the relationship between trust in news and perceived accuracy using a two-wave online survey. The researchers found that perceived news accuracy and trust were reciprocal. However, evaluations of the media in general showed that trust predicted perceived news accuracy, but perceived news accuracy did not predict trust.
Shifting from trust to empathy, Kim and Grabe investigated whether journalistic personalization and emotionalization can foster empathy toward Muslim female victims of discrimination in white non-Muslim Americans. The study was conducted with 490 subjects and utilized an experimental design. The results showed that news stories can facilitate empathy toward Muslim victims, especially among female media users with an existing prejudice toward Muslims.
The last set of articles focuses on visual communication. Scott and Peña focused on name use in Associated Press captions by examining 7,455 captions published between 2018 and 2022. They found that people from the Global North were named considerably more often than people from the Global South. In addition, names were included less in captions of news and feature images than in captions of sports, entertainment, and political images. Names were also included more often when the face was identifiable, and much less when the picture contained four or more people. People from non-U.S. countries, particularly Asia and Latin America, were usually qualified with an ethnic identifier.
Next, Midberry et al. investigated how visual framing impacts affective responses in news consumers. They carried out an experiment using two story topics (drug addiction and homelessness) in which participants were shown problem and solution images alone, problem and solution images together, or no image at all. The results showed that the combination condition evoked more hope and happiness, less sadness, disgust, and anger, and had no effect on fear, efficacy, or compassion compared with the other conditions.
Finally, Couture Bue and Harrison examined how images and captions impacted women’s feelings of empowerment after being exposed to empowerment-themed advertisements (ETAs). Female participants had their eye movements recorded while they viewed either captions or photos from ETAs, or both captions and photos. The results showed that empowerment captions (ECs) with no photo led to greater feelings of empowerment than ECs with a photo. The benefit of ECs was further underscored by the finding that women felt the lowest levels of self-objectification when a photo was paired with an empowerment-themed caption.
Enjoy the spring issue of JMCQ!