Peer review is central to the process of scholarly publishing, providing authors with valuable feedback on their work, acting as a quality control and informing the editor’s decision-making process.
If your journal uses SAGE track (based on Scholar One Manuscripts), or another online peer review system, you can use this to maintain a database of your reviewers and monitor how frequently you are calling on them to review for you. If you don’t use SAGE track, we recommend that you build your own database of reviewers in order to track who has reviewed for you and when to help avoid overburdening reviewers wherever possible.
Invite your reviewers to join this global peer reviewer community. Publons allows reviewers to track, verify, and showcase their peer review contributions, all in one place. If a reviewer has not received an invitation to opt in to this free service, we encourage reviewers to set up a free profile directly on Publons. Find out more at publons.com.
As part of our commitment to ensuring an ethical, transparent and fair peer review process SAGE is a supporting member of ORCID, the Open Researcher and Contributor ID
ORCID provides a unique and persistent digital identifier that distinguishes researchers from every other researcher, even those who share the same name, and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between researchers and their professional activities, ensuring that their work is recognized. Visit our ORCID homepage to learn more.
Researchers can also use their ORCID to gain recognition of their peer reviewing activities. Read ORCID’s six tips for building an authoritative ORCID record here: https://orcid.org/blog/2017/08/10/six-ways-make-your-orcid-id-work-you
Rewarding your reviewers
Though many reviewers value the opportunity to participate in scholarly dialogues in this way as highly regarded experts in their field, by and large reviewing papers is unpaid and can add significantly to their overall workload. The academic publishing community relies on an enormous amount of goodwill from reviewers and at SAGE, we are committed to ensuring our reviewers feel appreciated. This encourages continual reviewer participation and helps to improve the timeliness and quality of reviews.
Over the last few years, several studies have looked into whether peer-reviewers are burdened with reviews. The Scholarly Kitchen blog (on discussing the findings of three surveys "Are Peer-Reviewers Overloaded? Or Are Their Incentives Misaligned?") concluded the following in terms of encouraging participation and incentivizing reviewers:
SAGE agrees with these conclusions and we recommend that you put some or all of these in place as a SAGE journal editor. At SAGE, we offer all reviewers free online access to all SAGE journals and e-books for 60 days. Any reviewers appointed to the board receive a subscription to the journal. We also offer reviewers a 25% discount on SAGE books. Visit the Reviewer Rewards page for more information.
Best practice - improving quality of reviews
Advice on selecting reviewers
Although the vast majority of authors and reviewers act with great integrity, and we are enormously indebted to them we would also like to help you in reducing your journal’s exposure to any unscrupulous practices that may exist.
If a reviewer does not have an institutional email address, and/or you are concerned about a reviewer’s authenticity we advise you to follow the steps below:
Please do not hestiate to contact your Publishing Editor if you are unsure or have any questions.
COPE has produced a flowchart: How to spot potential manipulation of the peer review process. Designed to help Editors recognize potential signs of peer review manipulation, the features or patterns of activity shown may indicate a potential issue, particularly when found in combination.
Recommended and opposed reviewers
Some journals offer authors the opportunity to suggest reviewers who they believe would be well-placed to comment on a manuscript (recommended) or highlight reviewers who they believe would not be suitable to review a paper (opposed).
Recommended reviewers should be experts in their fields and should be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. At least one independently sourced reviewer for every one recommended reviewer should be used.
Recommended reviewers should not be assigned to a paper if:
Please remember that you are under no-obligation to invite any recommended reviewers (or to avoid inviting any 'non - preferred reviewer') for any paper.