A study of reviewing at the <i>International Journal of Osteoarchaeology</i> : Accepting, declining, fairness, and responsibilities

Before I became a journal editor, always saw the peer review process as an intrinsic part of academic life (Burnham, 1990). While is certainly not perfect system, and number its limitations are well known, it appears to be most impartial independent method currently available assess quality research submitted (Bazi, 2020; Tennant & Ross-Hellauer, 2020). If wanted submit my papers journals where others would have them, then only seemed fair that submissions in return. So long was asked fell within area expertise, never occurred me decline. Even if going through busy patch, made time look at paper some point following few weeks send thoughts. When took over role editor for human remains International Journal Osteoarchaeology, did best carefully focus invitations appropriate reviewers. My aim try ensure those who had published on topic before were invited. also tried avoid asking reviewer too many times 1 year, share load fairly. As past has shown invitation e-mail with wording individualized increases likelihood positive response (Franceschet et al., 2022), we reworded automated more friendly less formal. However, despite this, become clear academics do same approach reviewing I. It really very difficult find suitable experts agree our papers. authors their will well-read field, having researched publications topic, ask submitting propose reviewers help This common practice significant majority scientific (Liang, 2018), although proposed by clearly need chosen order give favorable reviews (Hausmann 2018). quite enter any reviewers, suggest seem no expertise whatsoever paper. am regularly baffled why choose make own lives harder either making effort read author guidelines, or follow them. Past noted whom editors struggle likely rejected than promptly accepted potential (Fox, 2017). Clearly, author's interests good selection relevant when they submit, invite experts. In quantify this challenge, undertook 12 month prospective study outcome IJO invitations, from September 2021 August 2022. Over time, 66 osteoarchaeology sent out review. Broken down 25 paleopathology, 19 anatomy age sex estimation, nine isotope analysis, seven skeletal consequences function behavior, five burial archaeology, one curation museums. For these papers, 53 details field. means 20% decided spend minutes takes names, university, address even two three such manuscripts, total 300 out. Of 156 declined (52%). The mean invited per 4.55, received 1.94. One required eight received, so. declines review, alternative field us place. declined, 51 suggested alternatives. That 67% paper, so, colleagues. how does experience compare other journals? literature virtually all right each proportion decline take frequently range 30% 60% (Albert 2016; Djupe, 2015; Fox, 2017; Franceschet 2022; Willis, 2016). There evidence declining trend acceptance rates, multijournal showing 56% 2003 generating compared just 37% 2015 (Fox vast state decision due conflict interest, but rather reason undertake (Willis, Studies investigated whether payments nonmonetary rewards certificates help, found meaningful increase taking (Gasparyan Zaharie Seeber, Gender differences been research, women underrepresented editorial boards 2016, 2019). Since refreshing board earlier ratio 57% female 43% male. Therefore, feel ahead curve gender equality IJO. We like thank helpful colleagues journal. Being indicator esteem which hold you your work. know one, pressures deadlines meet. 2–3 taken up marking student coursework creating grant proposal, invitation, quick letting them date could constructive way forward. someone physically ill, struggling stress, anxiety, mental health problems, should explain position time. rest seems journals, least ourselves. figure needed opinions given every possible, suggestions appreciated. benefit introduce emerging members so broaden individuals pool improve representation across geographic range. can work together next journal, there swifter path process. greater assessed match skills feedback value respect (Stam 2022). interest declare. data support findings corresponding upon reasonable request.