The Peer Review Week is a globally recognized, annual, community-led event that celebrates the essential role of peer review in upholding research quality. Roohi Ghosh, co-chair of Peer Review Week 2024, sits down for a Q&A with me to talk about this year’s edition and more.
Roohi Ghosh
1. Would you please briefly introduce yourself ?
I serve as the Ambassador for Researcher Success at Cactus Communications (CACTUS), where I am dedicated to enhancing the author experience within the scholarly ecosystem. This year, I am honoured to co-chair the Peer Review Week Committee alongside Maryam Sayab, Gareth Dyke, and Mario Machado. I also contribute to the academic community as a peer reviewer for Learned Publishing, European Science Editing Journal, and the Journal of Learning and Development in Higher Education. At CACTUS, my primary focus is on supporting researchers at every stage of their careers and publication journeys. I lead initiatives in researcher training, content development, and thought leadership to ensure that authors receive the guidance and resources they need. My 18 years of experience in academia have provided me with a profound understanding of the challenges faced by non-native English speakers in the publication process. As a strong advocate for researchers, I strive to bridge the gap between authors and other industry stakeholders, bringing attention to the unique challenges researchers encounter and championing their needs.
2. Can you share a bit about your background and how you became involved with Peer Review Week ?
I have been involved in Peer Review Week for several years now since I spearheaded CACTUS’ participation in this event for over five years. I was deeply engaged in planning our activities and ensuring CACTUS made valuable contributions to this industry event. The discussions during Peer Review Week were always fascinating, and I eagerly anticipated this significant event each year. Reflecting on my journey, it feels like a natural progression that my interest in Peer Review Week led to a more formal role within the committee itself. I wanted to make a more substantial contribution, and in 2023, I joined the Peer Review Week committee and co-chaired the committee in the same year. This is now my second year as co-chair, and I am equally excited about our ongoing discussions. The theme “Innovation and Technology in Peer Review” is particularly thrilling for me, and I am enthusiastic about the conversations we are having around it!
3. This year theme of PRW is “Innovation and Technology in Peer Review”. What inspired this choice, and why do you believe it is important to highlight this topic now ? I know the theme was chosen by voting. I mean the choice of the theme, from the beginning, among those presented to vote.
As you know, this theme was selected by a diverse group of stakeholders in academia through an open poll. I am particularly pleased that this topic, which was my personal favourite, was chosen by popular vote. There has been considerable discussion about AI and its impact on peer review. What aspects of peer review can be automated by AI, and which aspects require human involvement? For me, this topic extends beyond the mere use of AI. It encompasses innovation in reviewer selection to ensure equal opportunities for individuals from underrepresented countries and redefines the role of the peer reviewer. How can reviewers focus on critical aspects of review while AI handles routine checks? Additionally, how can AI be leveraged to promote high-quality interdisciplinary work essential for addressing real-world problems? This topic, for me, is about more than just AI in reviewing. It is about enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion in peer review, advancing research, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and making peer reviews more effective.
4. What are some of the most exciting technological innovations in peer review that you have seen recently ?
I think, for me, the technological innovations can broadly be categorized as those 1) increasing efficiency 2) those improving the quality of research output 3) those increasing the diversity of perspectives we receive and 4) those helping improve research integrity and I am excited about the potential and the improvement of peer review in all these areas as a result of technological intervention. For instance, how can AI streamline processes such that manuscript screening and plagiarism checks are handled automatically, allowing reviewers to focus on more critical issues? How can AI complement humans in identifying the right experts, ensuring that their contributions enhance the research output with diverse perspectives? Additionally, how can AI help spot data manipulation issues and ensure more diverse perspectives by accurately matching reviewers to manuscripts? These innovations hold great promise, and I am particularly keen to see how they develop and improve the peer review process.
5. What are the biggest challenges in the current peer review process, and how do you see technology addressing these issues ?
The biggest challenge in peer review is the sheer volume of papers being published compared to the limited number of available reviewers. How can we recruit more reviewers and make the current review process more efficient to ensure optimal use of reviewers’ time? The second challenge is fairness and transparency. How can we ensure that reviews are unbiased? Research indicates that Western authors find it easier to publish than non-native English speakers. How can we address and mitigate such biases? The third challenge is diversity of perspectives. How can we ensure that experts from underrepresented countries have equal opportunities to participate in peer review, rather than having their views and perspectives overlooked? I personally feel there is immense potential for how AI can address these issues.
For instance, imagine having one large online pool of reviewers across varying subject areas and from various cultural backgrounds. Imagine how easy it would be to match reviewers to papers even from interdisciplinary areas and imagine the kind of varied perspectives that we would get. To enable this further, if translation tools could be used in a way that would allow even non-native speakers of English to participate in the process, then language would no longer be a barrier in research. Imagine if AI could be trained to detect biases in reviews so that research was not rejected on the basis of who worked on it but on the content of the paper alone. Imagine if reviewers did not have to waste precious minutes checking for mundane things that could be easily checked by an automated tool but could instead focus on the real mean of the paper? Imagine the speed and quality and the kind of pace we would be working at then.
6. Artificial Intelligence is making waves in many fields. What risks does it bring into the peer review process ?
Given the sensitive nature of research, there are significant concerns about the safety of data when fed into AI tools. How can we ensure that confidential information is protected from breaches and misuse? The next is the issue of mis-use. Are researchers and reviewers properly declaring the use of AI in their processes? There’s a risk that the reliance on AI could diminish accountability, as people may start depending heavily on AI tools. With AI handling more aspects of the review process, are authors and reviewers still taking full responsibility for the integrity and quality of their work? Finally, while AI has the potential to reduce biases, it can also introduce new biases if the data used to train the AI tools contain inherent biases. How can we ensure that AI models are trained on diverse and representative datasets to avoid perpetuating existing biases?
7. With increasing reliance on technology, how can we ensure the quality of the peer review process ?
The key lies in accountability. It is important that the accountability does not shift from the human to the tool—AI is meant to complement human efforts and to make life easier for the reviewer. However, it cannot replace the reviewer. The skills and the expertise that the reviewer brings in cannot be challenged and as long as the accountability remains with the expert, the quality of the review process will remain unchallenged.
8. How can we ensure the security and ethical management of data in peer reviews (authors information, reviewers information, private comments to editors, conflict of interest statements, …) ?
Training and education are crucial. All stakeholders must understand the sensitivity of the data they handle and manage it with the utmost care. Given the current challenges to research integrity, peer review training is essential. Reviewers, editors, and authors need to be educated on the importance of data sensitivity and the serious implications of ethical or security breaches. At the journal level, several measures must be implemented to ensure data security and ethical management. For instance, all stakeholders, including authors and reviewers, should sign confidentiality agreements to protect sensitive information. This step helps formalize their commitment to maintaining data privacy and security. Additionally, journals need to establish and communicate clear policies regarding the handling of sensitive information. These policies should outline best practices for data protection, including secure storage, limited access, and proper disposal of data after the peer review process.
9. How can technological advancements make the peer review process more inclusive and accessible to a diverse range of researchers ?
Technology plays a crucial role in making the peer review process more inclusive and accessible to researchers. Non-native English speakers often face greater challenges in getting published compared to their Western counterparts. By using technology to facilitate reviewer matching and encourage participation from diverse backgrounds, we can significantly reduce biases. This approach leads to more holistic reviews that account for different perspectives and cultural contexts. Furthermore, the interdisciplinary nature of much of today’s research can make it difficult to find appropriate reviewers from small or specialized reviewer pools. Technology can expand these pools, making it easier to find suitable reviewers across various subject areas. This is particularly beneficial for fields where identifying the right reviewer is challenging.
10. Looking ahead, what trends do you predict will shape the future of peer review over the next five to ten years ?
I think the future of peer review holds great promise, driven by several transformative trends. We can anticipate the development of highly sophisticated manuscript screening systems that leverage advanced AI to filter out submissions with issues such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or methodological flaws before they reach human reviewers. Reviewer selection will also see significant improvements, with technology enabling more precise matching of reviewers’ expertise to the specific focus areas of submitted papers. This advancement will simplify the process of finding suitable reviewers for both specialized and interdisciplinary work. Furthermore, reviewers will increasingly have the ability to review manuscripts in their local languages, ensuring that the perspectives of non-native English speakers are not lost. I don’t know if I am being too optimistic but I hope that authors can submit their papers also in their local language and through automation we are able to have those papers translated, reviewed, and published. This could revolutionize how research is shared and evaluated on a global scale.
The recognition of reviewers is also expected to evolve significantly. AI technologies will facilitate the acknowledgment of reviewers’ contributions through reviewership credits, similar to authorship credits. This system could lead to the establishment of a transparent progression framework, where authors who publish a certain number of papers are added to a global reviewer database and gain opportunities to review. Reviewers might also receive scores that contribute to their career progression, reflecting their impact on the peer review process. As these changes unfold, reviewer training will need to become more formalized. Journals will play a proactive role in providing structured training and feedback, helping reviewers enhance their skills and maintain high standards. This recognition will elevate reviewers to expert status, increasing their involvement in panel discussions and academic events. Finally, a shift towards open peer review practices will promote greater transparency and accountability. By making reviewer comments and author responses publicly available, the review process will become more open and trustworthy, further enriching the scientific discourse.
11. How does Peer Review Week incorporate feedback from the academic and research communities, and how can individuals get involved ?
For Peer Review Week, the theme is determined through a community-driven open poll, and everyone is encouraged to participate in the voting process. If you wish to play a more active role in shaping the event, you can volunteer to join the organizing committee. To express your interest in joining the committee, please email us at contactprweek@gmail.com. Your involvement will help ensure that Peer Review Week reflects the diverse perspectives and needs of the community.
12. Finally, what advice would you give to researchers and reviewers on embracing innovation and technology in their peer review activities ?
My advice to researchers and reviewers on embracing innovation and technology in their peer review activities is to recognize that AI and other technological advancements are now integral parts of the process. The conversation has shifted from whether to use these tools to how best to integrate them effectively. Focus on understanding how AI can complement human expertise and enhance the efficiency and accuracy of peer review. Consider how these technologies can streamline repetitive tasks, support data analysis, and improve reviewer matching. Additionally, invest in developing skills that will help you adapt to these innovations. This includes familiarizing yourself with new tools, understanding their capabilities and limitations, and learning how to leverage them to support your work. Embracing these changes proactively will not only enhance your contributions but also ensure that you remain at the forefront of the evolving research landscape.