Demystifying the Journal Review Process: An Editor’s Observations

The journal review system has always been clouded by myth. The upholding of established myths and creation of new myths is not productive because it undermines the credibility and trustworthiness of the scholarly manuscript review system and hinders authors’ efforts to get their work published. If we aspire to creating important new knowledge and solutions for some of the world’s most pressing challenges and if we commit to academic publishing as the preferred avenue of quality control, integrity control and dissemination, we must trust the review system. Trust in review systems is best increased by dispelling myths and explaining unambiguously and transparently how the process works. This is the purpose of the present article. The article discusses seven myths that I encounter regularly both in my role as a journal editor and as a mentor of early career researchers. I share my views on each of those myths, hopefully presenting compelling and – where possible – evidence-based arguments that they are misrepresentations of how the publishing process in academic journals works. The discussion of myths leads to tangible recommendations for journal editors, reviewers and authors, which empower them to contribute pro-actively to the upholding of the high standards of scholarly research and the protection of its credibility and trustworthiness. High quality trustworthy research findings have the best chance of being adopted by governments and industry as a basis for decision making. The article concludes with a personal observation about how academic publishing has changed over the past 25 years and how the erosion of some traditional academic habits – such as curiosity driving research – represents a significant loss to the scientific community and society more broadly.