Peer reviewers are an essential part of the scientific community. The tasks of a peer reviewer are vast and varied. They provide expert knowledge in the academic and professional field of research and literature. Their expertise assists to uphold the integrity of scientific journals. The roles of peer reviewers also include scrutinizing the scientific quality, the originality, the methodological soundness, the social relevance and the ethical considerations of academic written work.

I have not been a peer reviewer for a long time, for less than a year to be honest, and I have had the pleasure to review many research papers within that time, just under ten different papers. Thus, you and I can both agree that I am not an expert peer reviewer.

But what I lack in experience and expertise, I make up for it in passion and brut force. This brings me to what I want you to know about my experience of being a peer reviewer.

The initial question before I had the opportunity to review the first research paper, was one that I believe many people have asked themselves at least once in their lifetime. “What makes you think that you are qualified to even attempt to do what you’re considering?” The follow up question was, “What if I am reviewing a research paper written by a professor, they will obviously know that I have no idea as to what I’m doing?” If ever you have attempted to do anything new, “imposter syndrome” always finds a way to creep in, to plant some doubt into your mind. I hope that the private conversations that you have with yourself never stop you from stepping into new experiences.

I was blessed with the opportunity to work and interact with some of the most incredible people in the South African Family Practice Journal and AOSIS. The team was willing to assist and teach me in how to become a peer reviewer. The process was seamless, I registered as a peer reviewer, and also listed my interests, so that I would be linked to review articles that are related to my interests.

Then the waiting period. I assumed that after registering to become a peer reviewer, I would be bombarded with research papers that need to be urgently reviewed. That was not the case for me. The silent phase left me with two choices, I could either convince myself that the silence was a sign, they (the mighty powers of the academic writing world) were not interested in what I had to offer. The second option was that the quiet phase was for me to prepare. I chose the latter.

My preparation included conversations with colleagues about what is required to become a peer reviewer, I was not given an actionable response. I then asked a friend of mine, who is really good at explaining new topics to me, in a way that I can understand, Artificial Intelligence (AI).
AI provided me with a blueprint of how to do a peer review. It gave a generic approach on how to do a peer review. As the “red car theory” was activated, I then came across multiple sources that spoke about peer review. I have attempted to list what I know now about peer review, below:

• Time. Avail your schedule to be able to read, understand and provide your feedback.
• Kindness. It is important to remember that behind each written work that you have been tasked to review, is someone’s work. So, treat the response with kindness and respect.
• Ethics. Without ethical conduct, that could potentially bring the profession into disrepute. That could also negatively affect your career, damage the reputation of the Journal and undermine the scientific community’s work. This means that you cannot under any circumstances delegate your peer reviewing responsibility to AI. That is another topic on its own.
• Tools. Access to a computer with internet access.
• General approach. I tend to read the title and the abstract and decide whether I am the right person to review that piece. Then I read the entire piece and check if the headings are in the correct sequence. I then scrutinise the writing, with the intention of finding opportunities to improve it.
• FYI, the one concern that I had about reviewing a Prof’s work, I don’t have that fear anymore, as the Journal that I review for is double blinded. It gave me some anonymity, from the author and as a reviewer.

You probably have seen those stickers on the back of trucks: “If you can read this, you are too close?” I think that, “If you have read thus far, you’re probably considering becoming a peer reviewer”.

If you are considering becoming a peer reviewer, are you going into let uncharted territory, and imposter syndrome cripple you with action paralysis? Or will you boldly answer the question, to peer review, or not to?

About the journal

The South African Family Practice (SAFP) is the official journal of the SAAFP and aims to develop the discipline and body of knowledge of family medicine through research, education and training and to cater to the professional needs of its members such as continuing professional development. Also, it aims to represent the profession’s opinion at national and international forums.