“Postdocs shouldn’t be doing peer review”

This week, National Postdoctoral Appreciation Week and Peer Review Week coincide, so I thought it might be a good time to talk a little about the role of postdocs in peer review of scholarly articles.

I worked with colleagues recently to publish a paper on ghostwriting in peer review. Ghostwriting occurs when someone has reviewed a paper and written a peer review report, but that report is then submitted to a journal by somebody else, with no record of the ghostwriter’s contribution or involvement. This often happens where a graduate student or postdoc, carrying out the review for/with their supervisor, who was the invited reviewer. Dr. Lijek and myself, who led the work, anecdotally knew of plenty of experiences like ours in ghostwriting reviews.

Sometimes, the ghostwriting is for no reason more than “this is how training in peer review has always been done”. This doesn’t make it right; but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the situation is as exploitative as the term “ghostwriting” may suggest. And our work showed the huge, if hidden, contribution that early career researchers make, apparently with the approval of at least their supervisors. However, as I was talked about this work on my travels, I encountered the response in the title of this post more often that I would like - that postdocs shouldn’t be doing peer review.

I’m not entirely surprised by this knee-jerk response. It’s a common attitude to do with gatekeeping, that pops up across many aspects of the academy. There are many parts of scholarly and academic work that are held to be the sole domain of faculty, and that some say should only be carried out by faculty. (Contrast this with the attitude of “PhDs are great for everything!” when people try to justify the number of graduate students and postdocs being produced.) Importantly, the division between who does practical labor and who does intellectual labor has become more pronounced - early career researchers do most of the former, and faculty the latter, at least in fields like the biomedical science - and so there is a reaction against the idea that postdocs can act as “peers” in peer review - they are viewed as intellectually inferior.

When I encounter this idea that postdocs shouldn’t be involved, I always reply with, “So, you’re telling me you are producing PhDs who aren’t capable of critically reviewing someone else’s work? Seems rather a stunning commentary on your graduate training!” Of course, this then prompts protest, “oh of course, that’s not what I meant, but….” and usually the discussion ends there.

I mention this because there are some logistical barriers that are reasonably straightforward for postdocs to overcome when participating in peer review; but there are some that call into question how and whether the role of postdocs is truly appreciated. Many journals and editors are of course, very keen to try to bring in a more diverse pool of reviewers. But it’s important to realize that not everyone has a forward-thinking attitude, nor thinks of graduate students and postdocs as intellectual colleagues.

So if you’re interested in getting involved, contact a journal editor with your expertise, and particularly mention if your supervisor is endorsing/looking to work with you as a co-reviewer for the peer review process. A number of journals and efforts are under way to recruit early career researchers, including by myself and colleagues. (I will try to link here to other resources, watch this space!)