Peer Review Report Submission Deadline Condition is defined as receipt of first 2 quality peer review comments or the deadline date as mentioned peer review invitation email, whichever is earlier. Comments received after the deadline condition, may not be used in the peer review process due to time pressure to complete other stages of peer review in time. Journal editorial office will follow the above mentioned deadline for normal conditions. But the journal editorial office will reserve the right to modify the deadline considering abnormal situations. During the peer review process many potential reviewers are invited. In order to complete the peer review process in time, normally the first 2 quality review comments are considered. Comments received after the “Deadline Condition” are considered as Additional Review Comments. These comments are digitally archived and often consulted (or even included) by the editorial office during any critical decision making process. Therefore, the used review comments (first received 2 comments) as well as additional review comments are very important from a scholarly point of view. From 22 November, 2021 list of additional reviewers will be also available in the “Complete Peer-review history” link of the published paper.
Background of Peer Review Report Submission Deadline Condition:
Fast and quality peer review is the real challenge for all publishers. If a researcher, being an author, receives peer review comments in time, he/she will be very happy. At the same time if a researcher, being a peer reviewer, receives cancelation notice of review, will be offended. It is also not known to the editor how many peer review invitations are sufficient to receive a minimum two quality review comments. Numbers of invitations are not constant. Even many times agreed peer reviewers do not submit comments. So there is no fixed formula to calculate how many agreed peer reviewers are required to get a minimum two comments. Sometimes 5-6 agreed peer reviewers are required to get 2 peer review comments. When an editor receives minimum 2 review comments before the deadline, he/she sends cancelation notice to other reviewers. Yes we do agree that it is not good practice but it is a practical problem. If you see the discussion in some internet blog post, you can see that this problem is faced by all journals including journals from Wiley, Taylor & Francis, NPG publishers, Elsevier, etc. Yes, this is not a good practice but still no practical solution is available in the peer-review ecosystem.
It is also true that new and unknown journals face more uncertainty of receiving minimum review comments than well-known journals of giant publishers. All new aspiring researchers will be eager to be the reviewer of Nature / Science / PNAS / BMJ / PLoS, etc. But very few will be interested in becoming a reviewer of an unknown new journal. So we are bound to knock on the doors of more reviewers. Sometimes 5-6 agreed peer reviewers are also not sufficient to receive 2 comments, as some reviewers don’t send comments without any information. It is a cyclic problem. So our journal faces the same problem of uncertainty of receiving review comments. We’ll be more than happy if 2 agreed reviewers send their comments in time without fail. It will save our time, energy, resources, reputation, everything. Sending more peer review invitations, getting more agreed reviewers and then cancelling agreed reviewers, etc are not our preferred way of doing business. It is our compulsion. We confess that cancelation of review is a problem and bad practice but we have no visible solution.
We are eager to listen to any suggestions from researchers to improve the situation (email@example.com).