Health Governance Review Volume 31, Issue 2: The role of peer review

Since 2024 the new format of the IJHG Review Section includes interviews with different stakeholders of the scholarly communication system – we have interviewed our outstanding and early-career authors (MacVane Phipps, 2024a, b), members of our Editorial Advisory Board, and Emerald journal editors (Ibragimova, 2025a, b). In this issue, we continue with this format and conduct interviews with our peer reviewers, who have different professional backgrounds and reviewing experiences. They share their ideas and experience of working with editors and publishers, the challenges and motivation for conducting peer reviews, as well as the influence of new technologies on the peer review process. We hope this will help our potential authors better understand the review process and journals' requirements, as well as encourage young researchers and health professionals to become peer reviewers.Martin Powell is Professor Emeritus of Health and Social Policy at the Heath Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, UK. He is a former Editor and current Chair of the Editorial Board of “Social Policy and Administration” journal (Wiley). He has published over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles. Dr. Powell was awarded an Emerald Literati Award as an Outstanding Reviewer in 2022.IJHG Editor: What motivates you to accept or decline an invitation to peer review?MP: I generally accept an invitation in an area in which I have some knowledge of the topic. I understand that Editors often find it difficult to find willing peer reviewers, with multiple refusals, but some of the topics I have been sent are well outside my comfort zone. I broadly feel some sense of “duty” to accept for journals that I have published in, or even where I feel I have had a “fair reject”, but am not willing to spend time for “pay to publish” journals that I cannot afford to publish in, journals that have given me “desk rejects” with no explanation or have sent one or two line reviews, or finally journals that ignore my decision (e.g. accept when I have indicated reject). In short, I expect some degree of reciprocity from journal Editors.IJHG Editor: What do you see as barriers to doing peer reviews?MP: One main barrier is limited knowledge, either on topic or method. For example, if I know nothing about a particular method, I hope that another reviewer will have some knowledge of this. However, I feel it is important to declare this. I try to provide reviews as I would hope to be reviewed, in terms of knowledge, constructive criticism and detail. However, in my view, some reviews seem to be well outside a reviewer's comfort zone. My “favourite” review was a reviewer who asked in an article as part of a special Edition of a Social Policy journal on the “Beveridge Report”: what is a Beveridge?IJHG Editor: What kind of support/feedback do you expect from the publisher/editor?MP: As above, I would hope that Editors treat reviews (particularly those with a significant level of detail) seriously. I understand that Editors now face large numbers of submissions, and that it may not be possible to give a significant amount of time to any given article, in terms of either reading before any “desk reject” or reconciling any conflicting information from reviewers (give clear guidance, rather than “please respond to all reviews”. Even if they are conflicting). However, it is important to try to be fair to both authors and reviewers. The reciprocity principle - please treat authors or reviewers as you would wish to be treated.Nicole Capdarest-Arest is the Deputy University Librarian and Associate University Librarian for Research and Learning at the University of California, Davis, where she provides strategic leadership for library programs and services that support the university's research, education, clinical, and public engagement mission. Her scholarship examines how information expertise, tools, and leadership practices shape decision-making, learning, and outcomes in health and research organizations, with an emphasis on applied, practice-informed impact. She is also an active peer reviewer, contributing reviews for scholarly journals and conferences in the United States and internationally.IJHG Editor: What do you see as benefits for doing a peer review?NC: For me, peer review is a form of professional service and stewardship. It's one of the ways we collectively maintain the quality, rigor, and relevance of the literature in health and health-adjacent fields. Working at the intersection of librarianship, leadership, and organizational practice, I see peer review as an opportunity to support authors in strengthening their arguments, clarifying their contributions, and situating their work more effectively within the broader scholarly conversation. Peer review is also a valuable learning opportunity for me. Reviewing manuscripts exposes me to emerging methods and perspectives, often before they are widely disseminated, and that directly informs my own thinking and practice. Overall, I see peer review as a collaborative contribution to the field: when done well, it encourages stronger work, thoughtful dialogue, and openness to alternative perspectives.IJHG Editor: Journals apply different peer-review models, procedures, and systems. Which organizational aspects and requirements for peer review do you find helpful, and what makes the process easier and more straightforward?NC: I find peer-review processes most effective when they are transparent, well-structured, and respectful of reviewers' time. Clear guidance about the journal's aims and expectations helps me focus my feedback on what will be most useful to both the author and the editor. Explicit prompts or structured review questions are particularly helpful, as they encourage balanced feedback across context, methods, clarity, and contribution. I also appreciate systems that are streamlined and intuitive, with reasonable timelines and flexibility when needed.IJHG Editor: What kind of support and guidance from the publisher or editor do you expect as a peer reviewer?NC: I value editors who provide context and communicate clearly. Even brief framing about what kinds of feedback would be most helpful goes a long way. When reviewers understand the editor's perspective, the resulting reviews tend to be more constructive and aligned. I also appreciate acknowledgment that peer review is unpaid and time-intensive work. Reasonable deadlines, clear expectations, and occasional feedback about editorial decisions (such as how reviewer comments were weighed) help reinforce that peer review work is valued. Ultimately, the most effective support comes from co-creating a culture that treats peer review as collaborative knowledge-building rather than a checkbox step in the publication process.Dr Sarah Prowse is a Research Fellow at the University of Aberdeen (Scotland, UK) and University College Cork (Cork, Ireland). Her work spans clinical research, information science, and emerging applications of AI, with a focus on global health inequalities and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. She is also a librarian and holds MCLIP accreditation from the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP), the professional body for librarians, information specialists, and knowledge managers in the UK. Since 2020 Dr Prowse has served as a methodological peer reviewer for the IJHG, reviewing evidence synthesis manuscripts (systematic, scoping, and rapid evidence reviews).IJHG Editor: What influenced your decision to serve as a methodological peer reviewer for this journal?SP: My decision to serve as a peer reviewer for this and other journals has been influenced by my own research practice, where I've experienced firsthand how a thoughtful, thorough peer review can enhance the overall quality of the work. Constructive criticism helps to identify areas for improvement, ensuring that the research is scientifically rigorous, transparent, and has potential for real-world impact. With the growing influence of AI, human expertise is needed now more than ever in peer review to ensure critical thought and academic integrity.IJHG Editor: Does your organization recognize peer review as a component of professional academic activity?SP: My research spans multiple institutions and global agencies, all of which encourage contributions to wider scholarly activities, including peer review. However, academia has its shortcomings. The expectations placed on academics have been increasingly debated as we try to balance research, teaching, and other contributions. Academia can also operate within an insular framework that prioritizes traditional norms and excludes voices and perspectives outside of established circles. I only volunteer my time as a reviewer for journals that offer multiple pathways to Open Access and promote Open Science principles, as I believe there should be no restrictions on access to knowledge, ensuring that research is freely available to all who can benefit from it.IJHG Editor: What tools do you use when preparing peer review, if any?SP: The tools I reference for peer review will depend on the type of manuscript. For example, I rely on resources like Cochrane for best practices in systematic reviews and evidence-based guidance. I draw on recognized expertise to guide my feedback on the scientific rigor, transparency, and overall novelty of the manuscript. This approach makes suggestions more actionable for authors, providing clear reference points for further consideration.Veli Durmuş is an assistant professor and Head of the Department of Health Management at Kütahya Health Sciences University (Türkiye), working in the fields of public health, epidemiology, and health management, with additional interest in health law and a particular focus on the governance, legal, and methodological dimensions of health systems. His research centers on population health, health inequalities, health policy, and the application of quantitative and longitudinal methods to examine complex relationships between governance indicators, social determinants, and health outcomes. Dr Durmuş participates in studies at both national and international levels. He also teaches at the undergraduate and graduate levels, particularly courses related to research methods and health management. His broader professional interests include health governance, health law, evidence-informed policy making, and advancing thoughtful, transparent, and analytically sound approaches to health research. Dr Durmuş is also regularly involved in peer review for international journals. He was awarded an Emerald Literati Award as an Outstanding Reviewer in 2024.IJHG Editor: According to the Web of Science, you have conducted 77 peer reviews last year (including 7 for this journal). How do you allocate time to do peer review?VD: I approach peer review with genuine professional interest, because it keeps me closely engaged with emerging research and often exposes me to methods or perspectives I might not otherwise encounter. Managing this volume is only possible because I treat reviewing as a planned academic responsibility rather than an incidental task. At the start of each week, I look at my teaching, research deadlines, and administrative load, then decide whether I can realistically accept new invitations. I accept only when the topic aligns with my expertise and the timeline is feasible, since rushed reviews tend to be less constructive and less fair to authors. I structure each review in stages. The first pass, about 1 h, focuses on the research question, relevance, and overall design. The second pass examines methods, analysis, and interpretation in more detail, including whether conclusions match the data. If possible, I return once more for a short clarity and tone check to ensure my feedback is specific and actionable. A practical challenge is uneven reporting quality. I think that poorly described studies often require extra time just to understand what was done, for example when variables, samples, or analytic steps are unclear. In contrast, a well-reported but technically complex study is often faster to evaluate, because transparency allows me to focus on scientific merit rather than reconstruction.IJHG Editor: You review manuscripts for different journals and publishers. Which aspects of peer review systems do you find helpful? Maybe some useful procedures and requirements are missing, while other aspects are redundant?VD: Reviewing for different journals and publishers has allowed me to compare a wide range of peer review systems in practice. The most helpful systems are those that make the reviewer's task cognitively efficient, so attention can stay on the science rather than on navigating procedures. Clear reviewer guidelines are especially valuable when they define what constitutes major versus minor concerns, because this promotes consistency across reviewers and supports fairer editorial decisions. Structured review forms are also useful when their sections, such as methods, ethics, reporting, and interpretation, align with established reporting standards. In these cases, the structure supports systematic evaluation rather than superficial box completion. Transparent editorial decision letters are another strong feature, because when editors explain how reviewer input shaped the final decision, reviewers better understand journal priorities and can calibrate future reviews accordingly. What often feels redundant, however, are free text boxes that ask the same thing in different words. Being asked to select categorical ratings and restate the same judgments in multiple comment boxes can turn reviewing into an administrative exercise. This duplication does not necessarily improve evaluation quality and may encourage procedural completion over analytical depth.A frequently missing element is a structured way to comment on the realistic feasibility of revision. Reviewers are typically limited to broad recommendations such as accept, revise, or reject, yet some manuscripts can fall into a middle ground. For example, a study may address an important question but rely on an underpowered sample, a cross-sectional design used to support causal claims, or data that cannot support the suggested additional analyses. In such cases, improvement may be theoretically possible but not realistic within a standard revision cycle. An option such as “not suitable in current form but potentially resubmittable after major redevelopment” would provide editors with more nuanced information. At the same time, I find that structured rating scales for key domains, such as methodological rigor, reporting clarity, and interpretation, can be helpful when they are limited and clearly defined. When used carefully, these scales offer editors a quick overview of strengths and weaknesses, provided they complement rather than replace detailed narrative feedback.IJHG Editor: What tools do you use when preparing a peer review, if any?VD: I use a combination of formal guidance and personal structure when preparing peer reviews. I routinely consult relevant reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, STROBE, or PRISMA, depending on the study design. This helps me distinguish between simple reporting omissions and issues that signal deeper methodological problems. It also ensures that my comments are anchored in recognized standards rather than personal preference. My core strategy is a personal review template that reflects how I evaluate research, including contribution, methods, results, interpretation, reporting clarity, and ethical considerations. This structure keeps my assessment balanced and prevents me from focusing only on weaknesses while overlooking strengths or relevance. I also pay close attention to internal consistency, for example, whether the results described in the text match the tables and whether the conclusions accurately reflect the data presented. Finally, I make a deliberate effort to phrase critical feedback in a constructive and specific way. The aim is not only to evaluate the manuscript, but to give authors a clear and realistic path for improvement, even when the overall recommendation is negative.Principal and Senior Consultant, Paulette Lacroix, is the dynamic force of PC Lacroix Consulting (North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada). She has a wide and diverse 35-year career in healthcare as a direct care provider, administrator, and researcher. She is a Certified Management Consultant, an internationally Certified Privacy Professional, and adjunct professor of Health Information at the University of Victoria. PC Lacroix Consulting provides consulting expertise in healthcare strategic planning, system transformative re-design, health information/informatics, and privacy and security risk management.IJHG Editor: You have done 20 peer reviews for this journal in the last five years. What motivates you to accept an invitation to peer review?PL: My primary motivation as a peer reviewer for the International Journal of Health Governance is the value these viewpoints and research articles provide to healthcare administrators and related associations. For me, this value exists on many levels. As a healthcare administrator, I welcomed new concepts and delivery models. As a business and privacy consultant, the journal provided into the of healthcare delivery including of and As a to the I its in healthcare as a My as a peer reviewer is an opportunity to support the journal in leadership and governance for healthcare Editor: Which aspects of the peer review system do you helpful? Which are or The most important of a peer review in my view, is to professionals with the It is also important for the editor to only articles for review that have and the editorial requirements of the a into time as a reviewer is and a valuable important is that the feedback process be and the process when or reading an the process should what has been in to the reviewer comments to time and in the be and for improvement would include a editorial review of to ensure the reviewer is not with work that would benefit from a before a review is all communication between editor and reviewer within the journal's In another I have had reviewer comments sent to me from personal (e.g. which was a privacy as are information as in privacy My of to that editor not a I a Editor: What tools do you use when preparing peer reviews, if When conducting a review, I ensure time to the article from to article within the context in which they are I that time and effort been by and it is my to understand the and as well as the framework within which the author has the As for tools, such as I have not yet this as I do not have the data and have the level of I expect this will are active of the peer review systems and from the of of authors and journal all that a peer review is a of scholarly the of are more of manuscripts reviewers, reviewer in and as well as and potential decline in the quality of and Peer review for in and national systems of research and with no reciprocity in the peer review from the of journals and their publishers and is also an of – an article in one journal is to where peer review from As an editor and peer reviewer I this when the and by this journal is published by another any by our tools and approaches improve the peer review Which should be used to and the interviews we clearly see what motivates researchers and other professionals to become peer reviewers, and what reciprocity they expect from the We are for those detailed As editors we should value the time and expertise of our reviewers at all steps of the peer review should provide clear and reviewer guidelines, and structured review which include structured rating scales for key suggested approaches and from research and professional those of our authors and who are how to become a reviewer or whether to accept invitation to review from one of the Emerald we to our Peer Reviewer at