SUHAIRUL HASHIM*
Peer Review as the Gatekeeper of Science
Peer review functions as the quality control system of science. It ensures that published research is methodologically sound, technically accurate, and meaningfully contributes to existing knowledge. Through this process, manuscripts are assessed for novelty, clarity, appropriate contextualisation within the literature, and the validity of conclusions drawn from data. By filtering out flawed or insufficiently supported research, peer review safeguards the reliability of the scientific record and guides the direction of future discoveries. Importantly, peer review is not merely about identifying weaknesses. It also plays a formative role in refining promising work, helping authors strengthen their arguments, improve experimental design, and communicate results more effectively.
Why Peer Review Matters for Researchers
Engagement in peer review offers substantial professional benefits, particularly for early career researchers. Reviewing manuscripts sharpens critical thinking skills and deepens understanding of research methodologies across a field. Exposure to cutting-edge studies before publication keeps researchers informed of emerging trends and innovative approaches. Beyond skill development, peer review contributes to reputation building. Editors often remember reviewers who consistently provide timely, balanced, and constructive evaluations. Such recognition can lead to repeated invitations, opportunities to review for higher-impact journals, and even consideration for editorial roles. For ECRs, peer review is therefore not only a service to the community, but also a strategic investment in long-term academic growth.
Understanding the Editor’s Perspective
Editors play a central role in orchestrating the peer review process. Their responsibilities include identifying suitable reviewers whose expertise aligns with the manuscript, synthesising potentially conflicting reviewer comments, and making fair publication decisions. Editors must also manage timelines, ensure ethical standards are upheld, and communicate clearly with both authors and reviewers. Understanding this perspective helps reviewers appreciate why clarity, consistency, and actionable feedback are so highly valued. A well-written review assists editors in making informed decisions and facilitates smoother editorial workflows.
Pathways for Early Career Researchers to Become Reviewers
Despite its importance, many early career researchers face barriers to entering the peer review ecosystem. Common challenges include lack of prior reviewing experience, limited formal training, and restricted access to editorial networks. The presentation highlighted several practical pathways to overcome these obstacles. One of the most effective entry points is co-reviewing, where an ECR collaborates with a supervisor or senior colleague on a manuscript review. Many leading journals now explicitly encourage this practice, recognising its value in mentoring the next generation of reviewers. Co-reviewing provides guided experience, builds confidence, and ensures appropriate credit when both contributors are acknowledged. Other pathways include engaging directly with editorial teams at conferences or workshops, joining structured reviewer training programmes such as Publons Academy, and leveraging one’s own publications by volunteering as a reviewer in related subject areas.
*Prof. Dr. Suhairul Hashim is a member of Nuclear & Radiation Physics (NuRP) Group and a Professor in the Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, UTM.
