Peer reviewers: time for publicity?

The Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP) is a refereed journal: every article which it publishes has been through the hands of a peer reviewer who has examined it in terms of content, structure and relevance before the draft is allowed to go into production. As many authors can testify, it is sometimes necessary to amend or rewrite an article two or three times before it is accepted. Some authors appreciate this process; a few have even footnoted expressions of gratitude for comments made by peers.  Others, particularly those whose hitherto successful writing experience has been with non-peered journals, are often less appreciative.

The contribution of the peer reviewers is an essential part of the publication process and, on the whole, this process has worked well. Many weak articles have been rejected at an early stage; others have been reconstructed and strengthened. Some very good articles have been turned down too, on account of their lack of obvious relevance to the journal's IP core, their extreme length or their lack of currency in fields of law and practice which move fast. On occasion, questions of lack of originality and even plagiarism have been raised. For all of this, JIPLP is extremely grateful.

JIPLP's computerised system for processing
peer reviews is more sophisticated than the
red-card/yellow-card system used by some
other legal journals ...

Like contributors, peer reviewers receive no remuneration for their efforts and tend to regard their work as a general contribution to the well-being of the IP community. Authors, however, enjoy the publicity and occasionally the celebrity or notoriety that comes from being associated with the polished product that appears in the journal, while peer reviewers remain anonymous, far from the public gaze and equidistant from both praise and blame.  Incidentally, some reviewers make a point of revealing their identities to authors and invite them to engage in discussion concerning their comments, but others feel more comfortable when they know that they can be honest in their appraisal of an article without having to face an author's wrath or indignation.

Following a recent discussion of the JIPLP production team, I would like to hear from peer reviewers, authors and readers as to whether they think it would be a good idea for each published article to give the name and details not only of the author but also of the peer reviewer (or occasionally reviewers) who approved it. This would give peer reviewers the opportunity to receive some public credit for their work -- and would also keep them on their toes in so far as poor articles would reflect as badly on the reviewers who recommended them as on the authors themselves.

Do please post your thoughts below or email them to me here.

A peer reviewer writes ...

JIPLP relies heavily on the expertise, enthusiasm and diligence of its peer reviewers. Once such reviewer, whose comments and suggestions have been warmly welcomed by contributors, writes about his experiences:

The Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice is a very reliable reference for students and IP professionals alike and it was a valuable study companion during my LL.M course last year. I particularly appreciated its concise and clear writing-style as well as the extensive range of topics tackled every month. Becoming a peer-reviewer was thus for me an occasion to contribute to the development of one of my favourite journals and to ensure that the next generation of students benefits from the most cogent analyses of complex problems, where legal concepts are tangled in a web of technology. I also saw my participation in the peer-review process as a smart and proactive way to stay informed of the latest developments in the IP field and to deepen my knowledge on many topics that interested me when I was studying.

Peer-reviewing is not time-consuming and, in terms of one's personal commitment, it is very flexible. You can participate in the peer-review process according to your availability and/or to your knowledge of the topic addressed by the article which you have been asked to review. It is entirely up to you. Peer reviewers have two weeks to review an article, which gives you enough time to do it, and there are no compulsory requirements to follow when writing your review. To my mind, peer-reviewing a means issuing an informed opinion on an article and treating the author with respect. That’s why I always take my time to understand the subject tackled in the piece I have to review. In the process I seek to refine my knowledge of the subject as well as my own writing skills, which is very gratifying.

In retrospective I am gaining more from my participation as peer-reviewer than the time I have spent in reviewing a few articles. I have been learning a great deal on topics that interest me and receive the consideration of a dedicated editorial team. Peer-reviewing has helped me to move forward with my own career and to get a better idea of what I want to do. I also have the feeling that I now truly belong to the IP community. Finally, every time I submit my opinion on an article, I feel as if I am an invisible helping hand, making the publication of JIPLP possible -- and this is the best reward of all.

Grégoire Marino has been a peer-reviewer since November 2009.

More peer reviewers needed

JIPLP has recently received for possible publication an article on interim injunctive relief for trade mark infringement in Tanzania. This sort of submission reflects several aspects of IP publishing and the role of JIPLP itself:

* The majority of countries in the world have too few IP practitioners, owners and administrators to support the commercial publication of a law journal devoted to developments within those countries. This means that writers on those developments must rely on international journals such as JIPLP as vehicles for the dissemination of peer-reviewed IP literature;

* JIPLP -- which, in keeping with its publisher's charitable objectives, has been made available to educational institutions in many developing countries -- receives a sizeable number of articles submitted from such jurisdictions;

* While the journal's current panel of peer reviewers works hard to assess the legal content of articles submitted for review, they sometimes lack a sufficient degree of appreciation of the relevant legal and commercial culture which would enable them with confidence to recommend publication, amendment or rejection of submissions.

JIPLP is always willing to enlarge its panel of peer reviewers. While the task of review is unpaid and sometimes onerous, it can be rewarding too, when a referee's helpful guidance and suggestions shapes an unpublishable manuscript into a publishable form or turns a good article into an excellent one.

A short word on personal privacy is appropriate here. The identity of peer reviewers is never disclosed to authors, but the identity of authors is made known to the reviewers, so that they can where necessary compare the submitted work with earlier works of the same author when considering issues such as originality and the extent to which the submitted work adds to the current debate.

If you'd like to volunteer for service as a peer reviewer, please email me here and give me some idea of your experience within intellectual property law and practice.