Peer Review in Education

AI can give you answers. But your friend explaining it over chai will help you remember. We’re all talking about ChatGPT replacing teachers. But the most powerful learning I’ve seen lately? Came from a student teaching his friends at 11 PM. No AI. No slides. No script. Just passion, real understanding, and a bit of humour. It was raw. It was engaging. And honestly? It worked better than most lectures I’ve attended. 🤖 ChatGPT can explain a concept. But it can’t laugh with you when you don’t get it. It can’t find your language to help you understand. It can’t stay back after class and say, “let’s go over it again.” That’s why I believe peer-led learning is the next quiet revolution in education. Here’s what happens when students teach each other: ✅ They simplify- because they have to understand first ✅ They build trust- learning feels less intimidating ✅ They remember- because teaching is the best form of learning AI is amazing. But community-based learning is timeless. 🗣 If we want education to evolve, it’s not just about tech. It’s about trust. It’s about students becoming leaders of learning. So tell me: What’s more powerful in your experience: a machine with perfect answers? Or a classmate who makes you feel like you can figure it out together? Let’s talk about it :) #peerlearning #educationinnovation #studentledlearning #futureofeducation #jaipurians #jaipur #pinkcity #drprabhatpankaj

On being Reviewer 2 (or just don't). I was pushed recently, asked if by saying don't be reviewer 2, that meant don't write negative reviews. My response, no! You can deliver bad news in constructive ways. Here are a few tips for how to write a review, that while delivering bad news, is not cruel. Step 1. Start with Something Positive (If Possible) If there are any strengths in the work, acknowledge them upfront. Example: “The paper addresses an important topic, and the research question is relevant to the field.” Step 2. Be Clear and Direct but Diplomatic Avoid overly harsh or dismissive language. Instead of: “This argument makes no sense.” Say: “The argument would benefit from further clarification, as some key assumptions appear unclear.” Step 3. Use Objective and Specific Feedback Please point to specific sections or arguments instead of making generalized statements. Example: “The methodology section lacks details on the sampling process, which may affect reproducibility.” Step 4. Frame Criticism as an Opportunity for Improvement Instead of: “This study is flawed and should be rejected.” Say: “Addressing these methodological concerns could significantly strengthen the study's contribution.” Step 5. Offer Constructive Suggestions Provide actionable advice rather than just pointing out weaknesses. Example: “Consider including a robustness check to strengthen the validity of your results.” Step 6. Maintain a Professional and Respectful Tone Even if the paper has major weaknesses, avoid personal attacks or overly negative phrasing. Example: “The current version has several areas that need refinement to align with best practices in the field.” Step 7. Conclude on a Forward-Looking Note Encourage them to keep studying the topic and to review their work. Example: “With these revisions, the paper could make a stronger contribution to the literature.” There is no need to "slam a pie" in an author's face, to let them know there paper needs work! You can deliver the bad news in a constructive way, which helps them improve as a scholar in the future! #academiclife #reviewertwo

Last week, I reviewed 3 papers in a row that all had the same problem: Good data. Solid methods. No visible novelty. Not because the work wasn’t original, but because the authors assumed the originality would somehow “speak for itself”. It never does. If reviewers and editors need 20 minutes to guess what is new about your paper, they will almost always conclude: “Lack of novelty. Reject.” Here is a simple structure you can use to fix this in your next manuscript: 1. One-sentence contribution (yes, just one) If you cannot explain your contribution in one sentence, the reviewer will not do it for you. Ask yourself: “What does this paper do that no published paper has already done?” Write that sentence. Put a version of it in the abstract and in the last paragraph of the introduction. 2. Make the gap painfully clear Don’t write: “Few studies have examined X.” Write something like: What we think we know. What we don’t know (exactly what is missing, wrong, or unclear). Why this gap is a problem for the field. If the gap is vague, your contribution will look vague. 3. Name the type of novelty Most early-career researchers actually have one of these: Contextual: Testing known theory in a new context or population. Methodological: Using a new data source or technique that reveals what others could not see. Conceptual: Clarifying, extending, or slightly challenging an existing idea. Say which one you are doing and show how. 4. Use contribution language, not “what we did” language Weak: “We analyzed 500 surveys and ran regressions.” Stronger: “We show that the X–Y relationship reverses in setting Z, which existing theory does not predict. This refines how we understand X in volatile environments.” Same work. Different framing. Completely different response from reviewers. 5. Echo the novelty again in the Discussion The Discussion is not just “here are the results again”. It is where you say, clearly: What changes for the field because of your findings. Which assumptions need updating. Where the next person should pick up the conversation. If your final section could have been written before you ran the study, you are not explaining novelty. Your research can be novel, but invisible. Your job is to make the originality impossible to miss. #science #research #scientist #publishing #academia #professor #highereducation #researchservices #novelty #thesis #phd

Once you publish, you'll likely get invites to review papers. Here’s what to keep in mind as a new reviewer: 1) Your role is to help improve the paper, not just judge it. Offer constructive feedback and suggest improvements, advising the editor on acceptance or revisions. 2) Focus on helping the author make their work better. Highlight positives and provide suggestions, not just criticism. 3) Evaluate the paper on its own merits, not the author’s background or institution. Any additional tips you’d add? Share this to help out a new reviewer 👊😎 Happy reviewing!

What do reviewers notice that authors miss? During my recent experience as an external reviewer for two different international publishers: -Elsevier  -Virtus Interpress I reviewed two academic papers published in: -Journal of Accounting Education -Journal of Governance and Regulation Despite the differences in journals and contexts, the review comments revolved around almost the same core themes, Points I am sharing here with any researcher aiming to publish in a high-ranked journal: 1️⃣ The title is not a marketing façade The title must accurately reflect the core substance of the research. In one of the papers, the work was rich and important, yet the title was misaligned with the content, this is a fundamental concern for any reviewer, regardless of the paper’s overall quality. 2️⃣ The research gap… or nothing Without a clear research gap, there is no real scientific contribution. A gap is not a rephrasing of what already exists, but a logical justification of what has not yet been addressed. 3️⃣ Methodology is not a formal procedure Methodology must be: -Aligned with the research question -Justifiable -Replicable 4️⃣ Statistical analysis: quality over quantity The issue is not “how many statistical tests were used,” but rather: -Is the analysis robust?  -Has it undergone sensitivity testing? In my review, I focused particularly on: Sensitivity analysis The quality of results, not merely their statistical significance This aligns with what I teach and deliver in Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis courses, where we use critical appraisal tools such as JBI to assess methodological quality not just form. 5️⃣ References are not academic decoration Do not include references that are not actually used in the paper. A reviewer immediately notices an inflated reference list with no analytical function. 6️⃣ Artificial intelligence: an enhancement tool, not a substitute for the researcher I explicitly stated to the publisher that AI was used only to improve academic writing quality. AI can: -Improve phrasing -Enhance clarity But it is not the author, nor the source of ideas or methodology. Conclusion Peer review is not about fault-finding; it is a test of the quality of research thinking, from the title to the final reference. If you are a researcher, always ask yourself: Would my paper convince an editor… before it convinces me?

Regarding my post on "Let authors be authors".... I just realized I had overlooked to include my most powerful idea that I implemented when I was Area Editor at Operations Research... The idea: let authors respond to the referee reports *before* the Associate Editor writes their report. I would not do this for every paper. It was not needed for minor revisions, and some rejections were clear. But it was a huge help for more difficult papers (for example, most stochastic, dynamic papers). This process puts the authors on a more equal footing with the referees. The current process makes an implicit assumption that the referees are more expert on a topic than the authors, and my experience (especially for applied papers in stochastic optimization) was that the assumption was often false. It is hard to express the frustration of dealing with reviewers who clearly had no idea what they were talking about (something that is surprisingly common in stochastic optimization). This process is easy to implement, and is inherently fairer. It requires very little work, and I think it even makes the process of handling more complex papers much fairer. I updated the webpage at https://lnkd.in/e8jW7gmk ("tinyurl.com/" with "letauthorsbeauthors") to include this idea.

Do we really need a problem in the literature (often framed as a gap) to justify every paper? No, but we often review as if we do. We’ve learned to narrate and argue contributions as missing links in a literature chain. But the problem is that not all good research starts with a chain. Sometimes it begins with practice, not gap-hunting: something real that prior studies didn't see, measure, or make sense of. This is why some research starts with a puzzle in the world a tension we can see in practice that existing theory doesn't yet fully explain. That’s phenomenon-based theorizing: start with a new or undertheorized phenomenon, connect it to existing theory, and then extend theory to account for it A phenomenon here is an unexpected regularity that challenges what we think we know and is relevant to scientific discourse, even if it has not yet been fully theorized. For a good overview, see: Academy of Management Review, "Phenomenon-Based Theorizing" by Greg Fisher, Shad Morris, Kyle Mayer. And I would also recommend:  "Ways of constructing research questions: gap-spotting or problematization?" by Jorgen Sandberg & Mats Alvesson The problem we face: for many, a literature-first (gap-spotting) script has become the default way we evaluate manuscripts.  The potential damage: if we force phenomenon-based manuscripts into a gap-spotting frame, we push them toward premature theorizing. We might end up with tidy propositions written too early. Before we’ve established what the phenomenon actually is. Before we can start defining its boundaries. Before we can define the key concepts well enough for others to evaluate the argument.  And if we want more practice engagement, we should not demand a gap-first story or exhaustive theorizing before the phenomenon is clear. But we still should expect a responsible connection to relevant theory and prior work, explaining why it cannot fully do the job yet.  Recommendation (for reviewers): it is important to match the evaluation criteria to the research type. If it’s phenomenon-based, you can ask: – Is the phenomenon clearly distinguished and rigorously documented? – Are the core concepts defined clearly (even if that feels like a sort of glossary at first)?  – Are boundary conditions discussed (where it does and does not seem to apply)?  – Is there a theoretical connection (a "Theoretical Anchor or Injection" as Greg Fisher and colleagues call it) that lets the paper contribute to theory, not just description?  And it’s gap-spotting, the framing changes: – What exactly is the gap? – Why does closing it change what we believe (or how we act)? Recommendation (for authors): help reviewers switch frames early. Say it explicitly: this is phenomenon-based theorizing. Name the practice tension you observed, show the evidence, then connect to the most relevant literature without forcing a gap-first story. Gap-spotting is one way to build a contribution and shouldn’t be the only way to evaluate.

Your Literature Review is Sabotaging Your Success. 80% of doctoral students make this critical mistake—and it's keeping them stuck in endless revision cycles. Most students approach their lit review like this: "Smith (2020) found X. Jones (2021) found Y. Brown (2022) found Z." Then they're confused when their committee says it "lacks synthesis" or "reads like a book report." Here's the problem: You're cataloging individual studies instead of revealing what the field has collectively learned. The Game-Changing Shift: Stop writing WHAT studies found. Start writing what the FIELD knows. Your committee doesn't want a grocery list of findings. They want to see you thinking like a scholar who can identify patterns, gaps, and emerging themes across bodies of research. Compare These Approaches: ❌ The Grocery List (What Most Students Do): "Johnson (2020) studied social media and found negative effects on mental health. Williams (2021) also studied social media and found mixed results. Davis (2022) found positive effects in their sample." ✅ The Synthesis (What Committees Want): "The relationship between social media use and mental health depends on three key factors that emerged across 15 studies: type of use (passive vs. active), duration of use, and individual vulnerability factors (Johnson, 2020; Williams, 2021; Davis, 2022)." See the difference? The second example: -Identifies patterns across studies -Creates new knowledge from existing research -Shows YOU thinking, not just reporting -Demonstrates scholarly maturity How to Make This Shift: Instead of asking: "What did this study find?"  Ask: "What do these studies collectively tell us?" Look for: -Patterns across findings -Contradictions that reveal important variables -Gaps where knowledge is missing -Emerging themes that connect different studies Your lit review should read like a story about what the field has learned, not a bibliography with commentary. The Real Impact: -When you master synthesis, you: -Get faster committee approval -Demonstrate readiness for original research -Show you understand your field deeply -Set up your methodology naturally -Position yourself as a emerging scholar, not just a student Remember: Your committee has read these studies. They don't need you to summarize them. They need you to synthesize them into new understanding. Struggling with your literature review? The difference between reporting and synthesizing is often what separates students who finish from those who don't. What's your biggest challenge with literature reviews? Share in the comments—let's help each other level up. 👇 #PhDLife #DoctoralStudent #LiteratureReview #AcademicWriting #PhD #DissertationHelp #GradSchool #AcademicSuccess #ScholarlyWriting

Why do some peer reviewers expect a manuscript to bend to their will, as though the author’s intellectual labour is merely a vessel for their own unfulfilled agenda? What begins as an invitation to refine becomes, in such cases, an imposition to conform. The reviewer ceases to be a dialogical interlocutor and assumes the role of a gatekeeper, one who dictates not just how something should be said, but what should be said. This is where the process becomes oppressive. When critique is no longer about deepening the author’s voice but about replacing it, we encounter a form of epistemic violence, a quiet erasure of intention, purpose, and originality. It is not that the reviewer disagrees with the argument; it is that they attempt to re-author the text altogether, diverting it from its philosophical trajectory toward theirs. This act transforms peer review from a scholarly conversation into an instrument of intellectual colonisation. At its core, academic critique should be an ethical exercise, one that honours difference, preserves the autonomy of thought, and engages the text on its own terms. When this is lost, peer review devolves into a theatre of control rather than a space of collective knowledge-making.

Over the past few months, our group made one small change that has had a surprisingly big impact: we switched our weekly group meetings to a memo-based format. It’s been transformative. Instead of spending group meetings clicking through slides, we now begin with 30 minutes of silent, focused reading and annotating a memo that lays out one member’s key results, open questions, and decisions needed. We then spend an hour unpacking those comments together. What used to be an “update session” has become a genuine problem-solving forum: deeper conversations, sharper hypotheses, and a far better use of everyone’s time. What I’ve appreciated the most: ➡️ Writing clarifies thinking. Students realize gaps and alternative explanations before the meeting even starts. 🧠 ➡️ Discussions now bring more group members in. Thoughtful written summaries create space for quieter voices to be heard. 🙋♀️ ➡️ We get a durable scientific record - something we can search, reference, and build on. 📕 ➡️ The overall pace of insight is faster, not because we meet more, but because we prepare better. 💡 It’s a reminder that sometimes the biggest advances come from rethinking the process, not adding more meetings. If you’ve experimented with similar formats in your groups or teams, I’d love to learn more about what has worked for you in the comments.