Rajbir Singh (31 July 2025)

The peer review process remains the backbone of academic publishing — but like many old structures, it’s creaking. Especially in India, where the research ecosystem is evolving rapidly, the system needs reform: more reviewers, better incentives, faster timelines, and more transparent practices. Not everyone is content with the status quo. Around the world, new models are being tested.

 Open Peer Review (OPR): This approach removes the curtain. Identities of reviewers are disclosed, and sometimes, the entire review correspondence is published alongside the paper. Journals like eLife, BMJ Open, and F1000Research have adopted variants of this model. The idea is to increase transparency, reduce bias, and encourage constructive critique.

 Post-publication peer review: Platforms like PubPeer allow researchers to comment on papers after they’re published, turning the entire community into reviewers. This decentralises quality control and keeps the conversation going.

 Collaborative peer review: Some publishers (like Frontiers) allow reviewers and authors to interact directly — more like a workshop, less like a courtroom. This creates a more constructive and less adversarial process.

 Preprints with public feedback: In STEM fields, especially physics and biology, researchers are posting their work on preprint servers like arXiv and bioRxiv before peer review. Some then receive informal feedback from peers online, allowing them to strengthen the paper before formal submission.

Conclusion
Change may take time. But scholars can adapt, improvise, and push for accountability — one paper at a time. And if you’re still waiting for your review? Patience, persistence… and perhaps another cup of chai.

Rajbir Singh (15 July 2025)

While fixing the system is a long-term project, there are a few things individual
scholars — especially early-career researchers — can do to improve their chances:

1. Engage before submission: Familiarize yourself with the editorial board and write to them about your research before submitting the article. Initial conversation can be used to explain your motivation and research relevance to assess interest. This can also be used to provide clarifications and improve chances of acceptance. It becomes difficult to engage with editors after submission.
2. Choose the right journal: Don’t just aim for the highest impact factor. Look at average review times, editorial transparency, and whether they support preprints or open review. Journals like Indian Journal of Medical Research and Current Science have relatively transparent policies.
3. Chose a reference article: Pick few reference articles from the target journal and understand the structure, flow of article, and language used. Fashion your article on similar lines to minimize the learning curve for reviewers. If they find the structure and flow similar, it improves their comfort level and reduces their effort.
4. Reference target journals articles: If your target journal is from your area of research, then you should have referred to some of their recent articles for your research. There is a good chance that one of the authors may be your reviewer. Also refer to the editorial board and review their articles to
   understand their point of view and their writing style. If possible, try to add their articles as part of your references.
5. Use preprint platforms: For scholars in life sciences or physics, preprints offer a way to share your work early, get feedback, and show progress to employers or supervisors. While not yet widely used in India, platforms like IndiaRxiv are emerging.
6. Become a reviewer: Volunteering to review helps you understand how the system works — and builds goodwill with editors. It also sharpens your critical thinking and teaches you what makes a good (or bad) paper.
7. Maintain a professional online presence: A well-maintained ORCID profile, Google Scholar page, or even a personal research website can build your visibility and credibility. It may influence how seriously your work is taken.
8. Build networks beyond your institution: Attend conferences (virtual or in-person), collaborate across universities, and stay active in scholarly forums. Isolation is a major challenge for many Indian researchers, particularly outside metro cities. Try to find a collaborator who has already published and that would make it easier to publish.
9. Document everything: If your paper gets rejected unfairly or delayed for too long, keep records. You have the right to withdraw your manuscript and submit elsewhere. Some journals also allow you to appeal.
   
   Conclusion
   As you build your network and engage proactively, you improve your chances and speed. It helps to be target journal and editor centric as it reduces their effort. We need to make it convenient for them as its largely a voluntary effort. Speak to your senior research scholars and learn more about the process. It may take time initially, but its manageable. Be proactive and persistent, it works.

Rajbir Singh (01 July 2025)

Picture this: you’ve spent a year chasing data like a detective on a wild case. You’ve braved power cuts, budget constraints, Unhelpful lab assistants, and university red tape. Finally, after rounds of editing, frantic tea breaks, and one existential crisis, you send your research paper to a journal. You breathe. You wait. And then… nothing.

Welcome to the mysterious, creaky old house known as peer review — where papers go in, time stands still, and outcomes emerge like lottery numbers. The idea of peer review is noble — elegant, even. You write something smart. Experts read it, check if it makes sense, suggest improvements, and if all goes well,
you’re published. In theory, it keeps bad science out and good science in. But theory, as any seasoned Indian researcher knows, doesn’t always translate neatly into practice.

Let’s begin with the first roadblock: lack of reviewers. There simply aren’t enough willing hands. The number of research submissions has exploded in India over the last two decades, thanks to UGC regulations, the publish-or-perish culture in academia, and the growing number of PhDs entering the system. But the reviewer pool? It hasn’t grown at the same pace. Senior professors are swamped. Junior ones are under pressure. And reviewing, let’s be honest, doesn’t come with much glory.

Which leads us to the second problem: delays. It’s not uncommon to wait three, six, or even twelve months to hear back. This might be just about bearable for a tenured professor, but for a PhD student trying to submit their thesis or an assistant professor
gunning for promotion, it’s agonising. Time is career currency in Indian academia.

Then there’s the tricky matter of bias. In an ideal world, reviewers are neutral, wise, and fair. But we live in the real world — where sometimes your reviewer doesn’t like your field, your methods, or your institution. Sometimes they are your rival, hidden behind the curtain of anonymity. It’s not unheard of for ideas to be “borrowed,” or for criticism to come not from the science but from a clash of academic egos.

Add to this the lack of consistency. One reviewer praises your statistical rigour; the other questions your entire hypothesis. One wants you to add ten references; the other says your paper is too long. It’s like being caught between two stern schoolteachers who can’t agree on your essay. And you — the author — are left to guess which direction to run.

The fourth problem? Opacity. The peer review system is still largely hidden from view. Most reviews in Indian and international journals are anonymous, and often the process lacks transparency. This secrecy can shield reviewers from backlash — but it also means no one’s accountable if the review is sloppy, biased, or flat-out wrong.

And finally, perhaps the biggest irony of all: reviewers are unpaid and under-acknowledged. For a job that requires expertise, judgment, and time, there’s usually no reward — not even a line on your annual appraisal. In India, where academia already comes with low pay and high demands, that’s a tough ask. Many researchers, understandably, would rather focus on their own papers than review someone else’s.

So, where does that leave us?
The peer review process is essential — no doubt about it. Without it, we risk turning academic publishing into a free-for-all. But it’s time we looked at it critically. We need more reviewers, faster systems, better recognition, and, perhaps, a dash of transparency. Some journals are experimenting with open peer review. Others are offering certificates or incentives. That’s a start.

Until then, the story remains the same. Indian researchers will keep waiting for emails that never come, reviewers will keep grumbling in silence, and the mighty machine of peer review will trudge on — noble in intent, but desperately in need of reform.

And if you’re a researcher reading this? Patience. Treat rejections as test of patience. And maybe an opportunity to have few more cups of chai.

We take great pleasure in announcing the launch of Applied Innovative Research – a publishing platform for modern academic and practice oriented research initiatives.