Viewpoint: the evolving landscape of peer review

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this viewpoint is to spotlight the role of reviewers within the collaborative triad of academic publishing. It argues that the significance of reviewers is often disregarded, leading to a gap in our understanding of the peer review process. This perspective emphasizes reviewers as unsung heroes in the publishing ecosystem, providing intentional and thought-provoking insights into the less-discussed yet impactful developments in the evolving peer review landscape.

Design/methodology/approach

Leveraging the author’s distinguished background as a recipient of the Journal of Service Marketing Outstanding Reviewer Award, this paper offers a personal reflection and synthesised viewpoints on the peer review process. Serving as a representative voice for reviewers, it provides insightful perspectives from the vantage point of a peer reviewer, diverging from conventional editorials and commentaries authored by editors.

Findings

Acknowledging the shrinking reviewer pool, this viewpoint suggests a mandatory “review for review” system alongside incentives like editorial positions, while considering financial rewards for reviewers. The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in review prompts ethical concerns but offers solutions for handling diverse submissions and dealing with “Reviewer 2.” While embracing open review for its transparency, potential pitfalls surrounding article confidence and copyright require attention. Ultimately, this viewpoint advocates for a collaborative approach, valuing reviewers, exploring innovative solutions, navigating ethical dilemmas in the technological age and implementing transparent practices responsibly for the betterment of scholarly discourse.

Originality/value

This viewpoint highlights the invaluable contributions of reviewers, enriching the scholarly community and promoting intellectual growth.

Citation

Mogaji, E. (2024), "Viewpoint: the evolving landscape of peer review", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 522-529. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-09-2023-0325

Introduction

In the complex realm of academic publishing, the collaborative efforts of authors, editors and reviewers have long constituted the fundamental triad that underpins scholarly communication (Colquitt and George, 2011; Bansal and Corley, 2012; Reinartz, 2016; Kumar, 2016). Authors entrust their work to journals, where editors, relying on reviews and feedback, make decisions that shape the academic discourse. This symbiotic relationship has been the bedrock of the publishing process for many years. However, within this intricate triad relationship, the role of reviewers often remains veiled, creating a notable void in our comprehension of the peer review process.

While authors proudly showcase their freshly minted articles, and editors boast of the impact and reach of publications in their collections, the vital contributions of reviewers often go unnoticed. The reviewer’s voice, essential in maintaining the integrity of academic content, frequently remains unheard and their laborious efforts are inadequately recognised, yet their expertise and critical insights shape the fate of manuscripts, determining their suitability for publication (Lindgreen and Di Benedetto, 2020; Lim, 2021). In contrast to authors who actively engage in conference meet-the-editor sessions, reviewers operate anonymously. Reviewers collaborate with numerous journals, working alongside diverse editors and authors, an experience that sets them apart from editors, who are typically focused on their specific journal.

This viewpoint highlights this disparity by stepping out and serving as a representative voice for reviewers. It seeks to offer insightful perspectives from the vantage point of a peer reviewer, breaking away from conventional editorials and commentaries authored by editors on how to publish in their journal (Bansal and Corley, 2012; Colquitt and George, 2011; Gardner, 2020; Lee, 2020) or by top scholars on how to publish in top journals (Dwivedi et al., 2022; Kumar, 2016; LaPlaca et al., 2018; Lindgreen and Di Benedetto, 2021; Lindgreen et al., 2021). Instead, this commentary delves into the nuanced challenges reviewers face in the contemporary peer review process, presenting a comprehensive exploration of various facets often overshadowed in traditional editorial discussions.

Drawing from first-hand experiences, as an individual who has received the Journal of Service Marketing Outstanding Reviewer Award, with a record of more than 280 journal article reviews documented on Publon (Web of Science Reviewer Recognition) and has been honoured twice with the reviewer of the Year award for the Journal of Consumer Behaviour, I offer a personal reflection, recognising the pivotal roles in the academic peer review process. The viewpoint sheds light on the hurdles encountered and puts forth thoughtful suggestions and reflections to provoke meaningful conversations within the scholarly community. As the academic publishing landscape undergoes unprecedented changes, this insightful commentary aims to contribute valuable insights and foster a deeper understanding of peer reviewers’ evolving roles and challenges.

The commentary offers significant benefits to stakeholders in academic publishing, especially the editors and associate editors. Editors can improve reviewer engagement through personalised messages and enhancing communication – insights on time sensitivity aid editors in streamlining workflows. Authors learn the importance of reciprocity by committing to review and fostering a collaborative environment. Reviewers gain guidance on reviewing different article types, enhancing their understanding. Academic institutions and publishers find valuable information on incentivising reviewers and supporting motivation efforts. The peer review community benefits from discussions on open review practices, fostering a transparent environment. Researchers gain insights into the evolving role of generative artificial intelligence (AI), encouraging active participation in shaping the future of peer review amidst technological advancements.

Amid continuous efforts and initiatives to support academic publishing and scholarly endeavours, this viewpoint provides a unique perspective. It aligns with Lim's (2021) stance on proactively engaging as a peer reviewer for premier journals and emphasises reviewers' distinctive role in the publishing process. The viewpoint aspires to enhance our understanding of the academic publishing ecosystem by illuminating these aspects. The goal is to foster a broader and more multifaceted approach to academic publishing, contributingg to a comprehensive view that acknowledges the diverse contributions of stakeholders in this dynamic landscape.

The evolving landscape of peer review

The peer review process is undergoing significant changes in the dynamic academic publishing landscape. Editors grapple with the challenges of handling an unprecedented volume of manuscripts, while authors vie for coveted spots in prestigious journals, navigating the risks of desk rejections and enduring lengthy review processes (Cheah and Piasecki, 2022; Teixeira da Silva and Nazarovets, 2022). While existing editorial commentaries touch on these concerns, there is a notable absence of viewpoints from peer reviewers – the often unsung heroes of the publishing ecosystem. This section takes a deliberate stance, providing provocative insights into the peer review process and shedding light on some less discussed yet impactful developments observed in my career as a peer reviewer.

Scarcity of reviewers

Despite the conscientious efforts invested in the peer review process, it is crucial to acknowledge the scarcity of available peer reviewers (Petrescu and Krishen, 2022). This scarcity has been a focal point in ongoing discussions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of peer review for academic business journals (Babin and Moulard, 2018). Considering these discussions, it becomes imperative to recognise and appreciate those individuals who willingly undertake the responsibility of reviewing manuscripts.

Upon receiving a peer review invitation, I do question my motivation – why take up this additional workload, which I can gladly ignore? What is in it for me? My initial inclination is to decline swiftly, especially if it is not a journal I have published or intend to publish. However, upon reflection, especially when the research pertains to Africa or other underrepresented regions, I consider the potential impact of declining on disseminating valuable insights. Recognising the reviewers’ scarcity and reluctance, editors and authors should be mindful of these challenges and adjust expectations in the academic publishing process (Franceschet et al., 2022; Gupta et al., 2023; Petrescu and Krishen, 2022).

With Lindebaum and Jordan (2023) highlighted ethical concerns about the sustainability of the peer review system, especially concerning individuals prioritising publishing over reviewing, fostering a culture of acknowledgement and gratitude for those engaged in peer reviewing becomes essential. Here, I propose a provocative suggestion: authors submitting a manuscript to a journal should commit to reviewing two manuscripts in return. This arrangement is what I call a mandatory “review for review” system. Authors should only send their work to journals with a willingness to participate in the reviewing process. Editorial offices could facilitate confirmation that the author has reviewed two manuscripts (to receive two reviews for their manuscript) during their initial checks to ensure that corresponding authors have contributed their fair share. Achieving a balance is crucial; the rate at which people submit manuscripts should correspond to their willingness to review. This approach would help address the scarcity issue without compromising the quality of reviews (Franceschet et al., 2022).

Personalised messages

Beyond the typically automated emails from the editor (and the submission website), I advocate for a more personalised approach when requesting peer reviews. Editors often have a familiarity with potential reviewers that goes beyond automated recommendations. In academic circles, connections are forged through social media, conferences and collaborative publications. These connections merit a more personalised and individualised approach to inviting reviewers and expressing gratitude (Kaltenbrunner et al., 2022; Horbach and Halffman, 2020).

Expanding on this perspective, let me share an example where a guest editor for a special issue invited me to review an impact article. This invitation was not just a routine request; it was accompanied by a personalised message that significantly boosted my motivation and commitment to undertake the review task.

The email reads:

I am guest editing a Special Issue for [Journal name], and I need your help. I've got a fairly unique paper that I have struggled to find a second reviewer for. Are you able to help me with a review?

It’s the new impact format, which features shorter papers aiming to describe how the research is delivering impact. After seeing your latest piece published, I felt you would be a great reviewer choice.

I hope you can help.

This instance highlights the importance of a personalised touch – recognising my work and research interests and an enlightening briefing about the upcoming manuscript. This human touch integrated into the peer review process can significantly enhance reviewers’ enthusiasm for embracing their role. It goes beyond the standard procedures, fostering a stronger connection between the reviewer and the editorial team, ultimately contributing to a more engaged and committed peer review community.

Table 1 presents examples of personalised messages that could be added to the review invitation email. These personalised messages go beyond the automated email invites generated by the systems and entail heartfelt, individualised messages from the editor (or Associate Editors). Such personalised communication not only helps build rapport but also allows for identifying reviewers who consistently excel in their role while identifying and filtering out those who display irresponsiveness, potentially jeopardising the integrity of the review process. By prioritising meaningful engagement with reviewers, we can create a stronger foundation for the peer review system and ensure the preservation of its credibility and effectiveness.

Time sensitivity

Even with the inclusion of a personalised message, my primary concern revolves around timelines. While various journals have different return timeframes, ranging from 10 days to six weeks, as a reviewer, a minimum of four weeks is preferable. This is not to suggest that I spend the entire four weeks on the review but rather to allow some flexibility in determining when I can submit. Having this extra time provides a sense of relief from potential pressure associated with the time sensitivity of the peer review process. Moreover, the urgency in peer review timelines can amplify the overall pressure in the process.

Dear editor, If you need to exclude me from the review process, I would appreciate a heads-up; perhaps you are deciding because two other reviewers have already responded. A personalised message in such cases would be reassuring and prevent feelings of incompetence. Let me know what is happening, and do not rely on the automated message. In the past, I have encountered situations where I received messages stating my review was no longer needed even before the four-week timeframe had elapsed. In such instances, I had to reach out to the editor to inquire about the situation, only to find out that other reviewers had already submitted their assessments, and the Editor was aiming for a quick decision. Clarification through a personalised message in such scenarios would be greatly appreciated.

Type of articles to review

Recognising the various forms of publications, such as viewpoints (Aksoy et al., 2019), commentaries (Russell-Bennett et al., 2020), personal reflection (Bowen et al., 2023; Mogaji, 2023a; Ratten et al., 2023); perspective articles (Mogaji, 2023a,b; Amankwah-Amoah et al., 2024), impact articles (Rundle-Thiele, 2022) and large author group opinion pieces (Dwivedi et al., 2023; Koohang et al., 2023), it becomes paramount for editors to exercise prudence when selecting reviewers possessing the requisite capabilities and familiarity with reviewing these distinct submission types.

Additionally, editors can play a pivotal role in orienting reviewers to the specific characteristics of each submission category. I recall a past encounter where I submitted a 2,500-word Perspective Article and received feedback suggesting rejection due to the perceived absence of a dedicated literature review, methodology and theoretical contribution. Using this opportunity, I engaged with the reviewer to elucidate the expectations for such submissions, and the editor also provided additional feedback in this regard.

Editors play a crucial role in guiding reviewers to understand the specific nature of the papers they are assigned to review. Reviewers may be accustomed to assessing conventional research papers, and it is imperative that they recognise the distinctions when evaluating a commentary or viewpoint, where detailed literature reviews and methodologies might be omitted. An example of this proactive approach is evident in an invitation from societal impact, explicitly stating their preference for short, impactful papers of a maximum of 2,000 words that focus on describing societal impacts. Clear communication of expectations by journals enhances the efficiency of the publishing process. This communication helps reviewers ask relevant questions and assures authors that their manuscripts are evaluated by reviewers who comprehend their unique characteristics.

Guest editors overseeing special issues (SI) in journals bear the crucial task of selecting reviewers for SI articles. They must recognise the significance of briefing reviewers on the SI’s objectives. Neglecting this can impede reviewers’ ability to assess articles in line with the journal’s and the SI’s interests. Many reviewers are invited without context, leaving them in the dark about the aims of the special issue. To address this, guest editors should ensure that the call for papers on special issues is readily accessible on platforms like ResearchGate or other publicly shared drives in case the office call is removed from the journal’s website. Reviewers need this information to understand what is expected and to assess how the paper fits into the special issue. Just as personalised messages enhance engagement, guest editors should get creative in crafting personalised invitations to reviewers, finding ways to approach them effectively.

Incentives

I have reviewed over 280 journal articles, and imagine if I get £100 for each review; that would be enough money to put down for a mortgage in the UK or even buy a house outright in some countries, but if we are not looking at financial reward, are there other possible incentives to encourage reviewers? While financial considerations are debated (Cheah and Piasecki, 2022; Gasparyan et al., 2015; Teixeira da Silva and Nazarovets, 2022; Zaharie and Seeber, 2018), common incentives like the reviewer of the year award and recognition on platforms like Publons are acknowledged. However, these often lack a financial component. Though Publons offers a way to compile evidence of peer review activities, the practical utilisation of these records remains a question. While peer review is widely seen as a voluntary service, the importance of incentives or acknowledgement is recognised. A potential incentive model could involve promotions, such as transitioning an outstanding reviewer to become an editorial board member (ERB) and then from ERB to associate editor within the journal. This approach provides an alternative and valuable form of recognition for reviewers.

Editors undoubtedly grapple with a dilemma as they strive to balance the aspiration to compensate reviewers with potential budget constraints imposed by publishers. Despite the challenges, it is worth acknowledging some publishers’ incentives. While financial rewards may not always be feasible, certain publishers, like Emerald, provide nonmonetary incentives, such as free personal access to up to 40 Emerald journal articles. Similarly, Elsevier offers a 30-day complimentary access to ScienceDirect and Scopus, whereas WILEY offers a 30% discount on their books. At Sage, reviewers receive 60 days of free access to all Sage Journals after completing a review. Additionally, they enjoy a 25% discount on all Sage books and a 20% discount on Sage Author Services. Nevertheless, it is unsurprising to observe reviewers seeking direct payment from profit-oriented publishers, particularly when considering the substantial article processing charges these publishers already impose.

Generative artificial intelligence for peer review

As we delve into the discourse on incentives for reviewers, another pressing consideration arises – the imminent role of generative AI in reshaping peer review processes and the potential ramifications for the traditional roles of reviewers. Conroy (2023) noted that generative AI might transform the nature of academic writing and publishing, including the peer review process. Integrating artificial intelligence into peer review practices marks a significant shift, with open-access publisher Frontiers unveiling an AI tool named AI review assistant aimed at streamlining much of the labour-intensive aspects of peer review (Dhar, 2020). Moreover, the American Association for Cancer Research has implemented AI software on all manuscripts since January 2021 (Van Noorden, 2022), showcasing a broader trend in the industry. Journal publishers increasingly turn to AI technologies to navigate the challenges and intricacies of peer review, prompting a necessity for academics to contemplate this evolving landscape. While journals cautiously navigate concerns about ChatGPT being considered as an author, a new question emerges:

Q1.

What if ChatGPT becomes a reviewer?

Since reviewers are also journal authors, distinguishing between reviews generated by a human reviewer and those by a generative AI presents challenges for editors:

Q2.

Would an exceptionally well-written review raise suspicion?

Q3.

Are there mechanisms in place to detect reviews generated by AI?

Q4.

Can reviewers misuse generative AI to produce reviews lacking depth or value for authors?

While some publishers, such as Elsevier, Taylor & Francis and IOP Publishing, have prohibited researchers from using generative AI platforms for their manuscripts, addressing the possibility of generated peer-review reports being incorporated into a large language model’s training dataset (Conroy, 2023), these restrictions highlight the need to grapple with the evolving landscape of generative AI across various sectors, including academic publishing. As we acknowledge the transformative potential of generative AI (Dwivedi et al., 2023; Ooi et al., 2023), addressing these emerging issues and actively participating in shaping the future of peer review processes is imperative.

Open reviews

As a reviewer, I consistently assess whether my comments and feedback would be meaningful and constructive for the authors, ensuring they can comprehend and act upon them. The intricacies of the thought process and the detailed evaluations that occur behind the scenes during the review process often go unnoticed by many – often only visible to the authors, reviewers and editors – the accepted papers are typically visible to the public. In contrast, the detailed review information remains concealed. It is becoming increasingly common for many journals to make reviewers’ feedback publicly available, along with the authors’ responses, for accepted papers (Ross-Hellauer, 2017). While I harbour some reservations, I see several benefits in this practice.

Firstly, sharing review documents fosters trust in the scientific process. It allows others to witness the collaborative efforts to enhance an article and provides insight into the improvement journey. Secondly, it is a valuable resource for showcasing examples of effective academic paper reviews, particularly beneficial for early career researchers and those new to peer review. Thirdly, the transparency introduced by public availability can act as a deterrent against the notorious “Reviewer 2” phenomenon, characterised by unconstructive and obstructive behaviour.

While open review holds merit, careful consideration is necessary to prevent pitfalls. Publicly available reviews might unintentionally undermine confidence in an article, with people likely to rely on the reviews instead of reading the article; more so, knowledgeable readers may find fault in the review itself or if the reviews lack necessary detail. Given that the typical review process involves only two reviewers for a paper, another thought-provoking suggestion is to explore community peer review, allowing readers to provide suggestions. However, managing such a decentralised review process poses challenges. Maintaining a blinded review process seems reasonable.

While voluntarily sharing reviews of one’s papers holds merit, authors must also contemplate the copyright implications associated with these reviews. A critical question arises:

Q5.

Does the copyright of the report rest with the referee who authored it, or does it belong to the publisher?

The issue becomes more complex when considering fair use arguments or the possibility of the reviewer (acting through the editor) obtaining explicit consent from referees. This copyright intricacy becomes particularly important when acknowledging that these reviews were initially crafted for the author in a private context, and there exists a potential risk of identifying referees through their distinctive writing style or specific phrases. Exploring the option of journal collaboration with platforms like openreview.net could provide a solution. In such a partnership, reviewers would have prior knowledge that their reviews are intended to be publicly visible, introducing transparency into the peer review process. While the debate on the ideal review process continues, this step toward openness reflects an ongoing effort to balance transparency and the practicalities of the peer review system.

Dealing with reviewer #2

The term “Reviewer 2” is pervasive in academic publishing, representing a reviewer displaying unethical behaviour during the review process (Peterson, 2020; Timmermans and Tavory, 2022; Worsham et al., 2022). However, the ambiguity arises: who defines Reviewer 2? Is it authors grappling with feedback, deeming the reviewer demanding? Are editors categorising someone as Reviewer 2, or are automated systems assigning this label? No wonder Tardy (2019) concludes that we are all reviewer# 2. More so, Peterson (2020) later found no indication that Reviewer #2 exhibited a more antagonistic stance toward the manuscript or deviated significantly from the opinions of other reviewers. However, evidence suggests Reviewer #3 is more prone to providing assessments that fall more than one category below the other reviewers. So, the emphasis should move away from the allocated number to the anonymous reviewer it represents. This figure, often called the “nasty reviewer,” can manifest across any number, displaying demanding, unpleasant, unreasonable or even hostile behaviour. We must understand and acknowledge that the issue is not about the allocated number but the individual behind this number. This understanding is crucial as we address how this hostile reviewer can disrupt the peer review process and calls for a prompt reflection on the intricate interpersonal dynamics within the scholarly critique.

The triad relationship between editor, reviewer, and author is pivotal, with roles evolving, and we must be conversant about these challenges (Cranford, 2020; Worsham et al., 2022) – it could be you dealing with Reviewer 2 next time. I propose three strategies to tackle challenges posed by difficult reviewers. First, reviewers should engage in thoughtful reflection on their reviews and comments. As a reviewer, we should be convinced that the feedback provided positively enhances the manuscript, even if we recommend “rejection” to the editor. Second, the editor plays a crucial role in managing such situations. Before sending feedback to the author, editors can proactively engage with reviewers, encouraging reflection and offering constructive approaches. If unethical behaviour persists, it may be reasonable for editors to reconsider using the reviewer for future assessments. Third, authors should proactively take charge of addressing these challenges. Open communication with the editor is essential while not minding the reluctance to engage, especially for early career researchers. Expressing concerns about reviewers’ behaviour is crucial. This conversation with the Editor entails articulating when demands appear unreasonable or if a reviewer pushes the manuscript in an undesirable direction. Open communication is key to maintaining a fair and constructive review process.

Conclusion

Leveraging my role as a reviewer and recognising the frequently underestimated significance of peer reviews, I have taken a deliberate and unique perspective in this viewpoint article. Differing from prevalent editorial commentaries on peer review or academic publishing, I have provided thorough, critical reflections and suggestions on specific aspects of the review process. This viewpoint will not only spark discussions on peer review but also make a meaningful contribution to key stakeholders in the academic community.

The commentary offers valuable examples of personalised messages that editors and associate editors can use to engage potential reviewers effectively. Editors benefit significantly from this suggestion as they adopt a more personalised approach when soliciting peer reviews. This approach facilitates effective communication and enhances the likelihood of a positive response from potential reviewers. Moreover, editors can glean insights from the commentary on managing time sensitivity within the peer review process. Understanding the nuances of timely review processes and ensuring prompt decisions are crucial aspects contributing to academic journal workflows’ overall efficiency. This guidance can aid editors in streamlining the peer review timeline and maintaining a responsive and effective review process.

On the other hand, authors submitting manuscripts to academic journals can derive insights into the significance of their contribution to the peer review process. The commentary introduces the idea that authors should commit to reviewing two manuscripts in return for submitting their work. This concept emphasises the importance of reciprocity within the academic community and encourages authors to actively engage in the peer review process. This approach contributes to a more collaborative and supportive scholarly environment by fostering a culture of mutual participation.

The emphasis on the scarcity of reviewers in the viewpoint encourages a culture of acknowledgement for those engaged in peer reviewing, providing reviewers with recognition for their valuable contributions. The discussion on the time sensitivity of the peer review process offers insights into establishing a minimum review timeframe, guiding reviewers in managing their time effectively.

Reviewers can benefit from the viewpoint's guidance on the types of articles to review and the importance of understanding distinct submission types. This information equips reviewers to understand better their role in evaluating different publications. The entire peer review community can benefit from the discussion on open review practices, transparency and the potential for community peer review. These insights contribute to fostering a more transparent and collaborative peer review environment, with the suggestion of community peer review opening avenues for broader participation.

Researchers and academics can gain valuable insights from the discussion on the role of Generative AI in reshaping peer review processes. The viewpoint raises crucial questions about the potential impact of AI on the traditional roles of reviewers, encouraging researchers to actively participate in shaping the future of peer review in the context of evolving technologies.

The information presented caters to a diverse audience involved in the academic publishing and peer review ecosystem, offering insights, suggestions and considerations for various stakeholders.

Table 1

Examples of personalised messages that could be added to the review invitation email

S. no.	Context	Justification	Sample personalised message
1	Acknowledging expertise	Recognising expertise is a key factor in selecting a reviewer. Contextualising and acknowledging their expertise can encourage a positive response from the reviewer	I am genuinely impressed by your extensive expertise in [Reviewer’s Area of Expertise]. I have got this manuscript titled [Manuscript Title] that could really benefit from your insights. Your expertise holds immense value, and I would be honoured to have your contribution in shaping the quality of this submission
2	Highlighting compatibility	Highlighting the alignment between the reviewer’s expertise and the manuscript’s subject matter can be highly engaging. This connection could foster a stronger sense of purpose and collaboration, ultimately increasing the probability of a positive response	I trust you are doing well. Your work on [Relevant Research Topic] closely aligns with the subject matter of the manuscript I am handling, titled [Manuscript Title]. Your expertise in this area makes you an ideal candidate for this review, and your input would be highly valued in ensuring the manuscript’s accuracy and depth
3	Personal connection	Editors can leverage shared experiences to extend personalised invitations. At conferences, editors connect with potential contributors, cultivating relationships with peer reviewers. This fosters a collaborative environment crucial for successful academic publishing	I recall our engaging discussion at [Conference Name], where you presented your research on [Conference Presentation Topic]. Your expertise in [Reviewer's Area of Expertise] is evident, and I am excited to invite you to review the manuscript titled [Manuscript Title]. Your feedback could significantly enhance its quality
4	Appreciating previous contribution	Editors are familiar with exceptional reviewers who have consistently provided valuable feedback. Acknowledging and appreciating their past contributions in invitation emails can strengthen their motivation to continue collaborating with the journal	Thank you for your impactful review! Your analysis of [specific point] in the previous manuscript was exceptional. To further elevate our new research, titled “[Manuscript Title],” I would be honoured to have you review again. Your dedication and insights could greatly benefit the authors
5	Active engagement in the scholarly community	Building meaningful connections with potential reviewers fosters a positive academic atmosphere, transcending traditional methods. Leveraging social media or personal networks for acknowledgement lays a foundation for interaction. Recognising achievements beyond publications adds depth to invitations	I recently came across your insightful paper on [Recent Paper Title] and was impressed by your thorough analysis [consider if you can say something about their methodology]. Given your expertise in [Reviewer’s Area of Expertise], your perspective would be invaluable in reviewing the manuscript titled [Manuscript Title]
6	Mentioning shared interests	As academics, we share research interests. Creating a triangle of shared interest between the editor, reviewer and author can motivate the prospective reviewer to accept the task	I have noticed our shared interest in [Common Research Interest], and your work in this area has been inspiring. I am excited to invite you to review the Manuscript [Manuscript Title], which delves into similar themes. Your insights could provide a fresh perspective and enrich the review process

Source:

Authors’ own work