Recognizing the contributions of reviewers in publishing and peer review

For authors, publishing in high-quality peer-reviewed journals is critical for gaining recognition from their peers. Frequently it is also mandatory as part of the ‘‘publish or perish’’ environment of academia and other research organizations. In addition to gaining recognition via publishing, access to peer-reviewed journals is one way researchers and practitioners can remain abreast of the latest work in their field, get inspired by exposure to new ideas, and gain detailed knowledge about the cutting-edge work of others, all of which are requirements for professional and intellectual growth. For a research discipline, having high-quality, peer-reviewed, recognizable and reputable journals is critical for fostering a sense of community and providing a central focus that allows researchers to identify as part of a group. SIMULATION is the monthly journal of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International (SCS). It focuses on both methodologies and applications of modeling and simulation (M&S). Together with the Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation (JDMS), which covers military and defense applications of M&S, these journals are focal points for the communication and dissemination of highquality research related to the theory and practice of M&S. The success and growth of these journals enables and is enabled by the success and growth of SCS and the M&S community. As part of our continuing efforts to enhance the quality of these journals, we carefully reviewed factors affecting their growth and quality improvement. This involved discussions with SCS members as well as with authors who have submitted manuscripts to SIMULATION and JDMS. What we heard consistently is that timely handling of manuscripts is very important for authors and is something that affects their willingness to submit their manuscripts to the journal. Another known factor that contributes to the vibrancy of the journals is the number of manuscript submissions; this number can be interpreted as a proxy for quality because it affects the ability to select high-quality papers for publication. Thus, we decided to focus on improving the timeliness of handling manuscripts and on motivating authors to submit their work to SCS journals. Understanding the logistics of publishing a journal such as SIMULATION is important in identifying opportunities for optimizing timeliness. A critical factor, perhaps the most critical factor, affecting the overall paper-handling process following the submission of a manuscript is that the editing process largely depends on volunteer editors and reviewers. Every submission is initially reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, who makes an initial determination of whether the submission is within the journal’s scope. If it is, the submitted manuscript is assigned to one of the journal’s associate editors who is knowledgeable in the manuscript’s subject area. The associate editor is responsible for identifying and inviting reviewers who in turn referee the manuscript and very often make recommendations for revisions that will improve it. These recommendations are aggregated by the associate editor, who makes a recommendation regarding the paper to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision. Everyone involved in the process as described (Editorin-Chief, associate editors, and reviewers) are unpaid volunteers. Moreover, they are in their roles because they are experts, and as such, there are many competing demands on their time. Therefore, the challenge in maintaining the timeliness of the review process is that it involves a lot of work with varying amounts of benefit for the involved volunteers. In particular, reviewers are expected to do a lot of work with relatively little credit and/or motivation. As anyone who has reviewed a scientific paper knows, performing a thorough review of a manuscript can take several hours. Unlike editors, who are recognized by name on an ongoing basis, reviewers go largely unnoticed except once every year when the journal publishes a list of names thanking the reviewers who have contributed to the journal during the previous year. This is simply not enough recognition of the essential work of the reviewers. Furthermore, when crediting reviewers, there is no differentiation between a reviewer who consistently does thorough reviews with constructive comments and a reviewer who simply makes a recommendation and provides no additional supporting materials. Beginning this month, we have instituted two new initiatives intended to acknowledge the work of reviewers, as well as to motivate authors.