9 Tips for Your Quality Review Process

Peer review is a core mechanism for quality control in scientific publishing, but the quality of peer review itself is often obscured by the fact that it takes places behind closed curtains in most journals. Although academic journals need to publish high quality work in order to obtain and maintain a good standing within their particular scientific fields, several recent controversies have highlighted problems with peer review in both traditional (subscription) journals and in Open Access journals [1].

The feedback provided is mostly constructive and designed to help authors with rewrites and resubmissions. However, the amount of written commentary provided by reviewers is limited and in one-third of cases, the reviewers disagreed with each other, which generates additional work for the track chairs and editors [2].

1. Involve Three Pairs of Eyes in the Review Process
   To ensure the highest quality, every piece of content should undergo thorough scrutiny by at least one editor/proofreader, one reviewer, and a manager. This multi-tiered approach minimizes the chances of costly errors and embarrassing mistakes slipping through to the final draft. It’s crucial to establish clear expectations for each team member involved in the process before assigning the content for review. This ensures alignment and consistency throughout the editing and review process.
2. Review Your Inventory of Existing Content
   When expanding your content operations, a frequently overlooked aspect is the thorough evaluation of your existing content inventory. This step holds significant importance when assessing an editor’s contributions, as duplicative content significantly detracts from overall quality. If multiple articles center around identical topics or convey repetitive information, readers will quickly discern the redundancy, leading to a perceived decline in content quality and value.
3. Use a Style Guide
   Style guides are indispensable tools for ensuring consistent content quality, refining the work even before the first word hits the page. Serving as navigational aids for writers, editors, and reviewers alike, these guides lay out clear pathways toward polished and cohesive content.

Voice and tone guidelines, rules for capitalization and comma usage, and even formatting preferences are meticulously outlined in the style guides. Reviewers should demonstrate proficiency in utilizing the style guide when assessing an editor’s work.

4. Employ Reviewers With Subject-matter Expertise
   Content that delves into niche areas demands scrutiny from individuals with subject-matter expertise. This imperative arises from the risk of compromised quality should inaccuracies seep into the content. For enterprises operating within highly technical domains, the necessity amplifies, underscoring the pivotal role of experts in meticulously reviewing the factual and data-driven content of each article.
5. Adopt Checklists
   A checklist serves as a meticulous quality control mechanism for editors. It ensures adherence to the style guide, verification of appropriate link usage, and compliance with prescribed word count ranges. The checklist can be tailored to encompass various aspects, allowing for thorough scrutiny. Granting your team greater creative freedom with edits could steer the checklist towards a more format-centric approach.

Ensure that whichever decision you make, the checklist remains precise, including only essential items crucial for maintaining document quality. Including optional or irrelevant items in the checklist would result in wasted time for the reviewer.

6. Utilize Deadlines
Typically, content writers or creators operate under tight deadlines to submit their articles. However, the same level of urgency should be applied to editors and reviewers. During the initial phases of scaling content, the review and approval process often become the bottleneck, impeding the content creation process.

Stringent deadlines must be enforced at each stage of the review process. Should the initial editor need to revisit a piece of content, a deadline must be set for revisions.

7. Communicate Feedback
   Constructive feedback is essential for cultivating top-tier editors. When delivered effectively, suggestions for enhancement serve as priceless tools for elevating the caliber of the piece and subsequent endeavors. Feedback must be precise and actionable, offering clear guidance for improvement.

It’s imperative that suggestions for improvement are accompanied by concrete examples. Ambiguous criticism from a reviewer serves only to demoralize or incite frustration in an editor, rather than facilitating the enhancement of their work’s quality.

8. Integrate Client Feedback Into the Process
   Consistent communication with your clients or customers is paramount to your strategy’s success. Understanding their preferences, dislikes, and content objectives is essential. When editors review content, they must ensure it meets the customers’ requirements.

Quality content is defined by its value. Beyond mere grammatical correctness and engaging writing, your content should deliver practical value that customers can apply to address their challenges. Regular check-ins with clients, whether weekly or monthly, offer invaluable insights into their progress and requirements. Armed with this knowledge, you and your team can refine your strategy to better meet their needs.

9. Keep Quality Top of Mind
   Striving for excellence should be the fundamental benchmark when evaluating an editor’s work. Rather than merely questioning if the work meets a baseline quality, the reviewer’s inquiry should revolve around enhancing the piece further. Customers seek informative content to address their concerns, and any perceived deficiency in quality could result in them swiftly bypassing it, irrespective of the product or service’s suitability to their requirements.

Reference

1. Wicherts, J. M. (2016). Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. PloS one, 11(1), e0147913.
2. Dobele, A. R. (2015). Assessing the quality of feedback in the peer-review process. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(5), 853-868.