In 2023, HT reviewers continue to make outstanding contributions to the peer review process. They demonstrated professional effort and enthusiasm in their reviews and provided comments that genuinely help the authors to enhance their work.

Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding reviewers, with a brief interview of their thoughts and insights as a reviewer. Allow us to express our heartfelt gratitude for their tremendous effort and valuable contributions to the scientific process.

Februray, 2023
Alec I. Kennedy, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Germany

Februray, 2023

Alec I. Kennedy

Dr. Alec I. Kennedy is a Research Analyst with the Research and Analysis Unit of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) in Hamburg, Germany. He received his doctorate in Public Policy and Management from the Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Washington, USA. His research focus is in the area of Education Policy, where his work aims to inform policymakers in making decisions to improve the educational experiences of all students. His recent research has studied the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the learning and experiences of students around the world. In addition to his research, he has also taught in several workshops on quantitative methods, which are open to researchers interested in conducting research in education using data on educational systems around the world collected in IEA studies. Learn more about Dr. Kennedy here.

HT: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Kennedy: Peer review plays a vital role in science. I am always thankful to my peers (anonymous or otherwise) for their comments on my research, as it allows me to improve my work and build confidence in the findings and interpretations. For academic journals, peer reviews can ensure that published work is of top quality by offering useful feedback and unique perspectives that can be incorporated into updated drafts of manuscripts. Even if peer reviews recommend for rejection of publication, they still should offer valuable insights for authors on how to improve their research by noting the areas for improvement and reasons for recommended rejection. In a broader sense, peer-review systems used by academic journals should make sure that new research meaningfully advances the field by verifying that the research is sound and offers new insights.

HT: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?

Dr. Kennedy: Reviewers should closely evaluate several aspects of the paper: importance, clarity, theoretical underpinning, research design, and analytical approach, among others, depending on the type of research. These evaluations should be done with objectivity while providing their own expertise on the topic. In addition to these standard criteria, I believe it is important for reviewers to aim to provide constructive and actionable comments for the author(s) to improve their work. When developing my own feedback, I often imagine the changes I would want to make to the paper if I were a collaborator. Furthermore, I believe it is important that reviewers do not let their personal biases influence the direction of their decisions regarding publication recommendations. Approaching the review with an open mind can ensure these decisions will not silence important perspectives in the academic discourse.

HT: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?

Dr. Kennedy: Peer reviews are part of the service you provide to the field. When submitting your own manuscript, you expect others to volunteer to review your work, so reviewing someone else's manuscripts is how you repay their service. Beyond these expectations, what motivates me personally to provide reviews is the ability to support and improve important research for my field. If recognition or profits were my main motivators, I would probably be working in a different field. I am content knowing that the peer reviews I provide are considered and potentially help my peers improve their work and ultimately improve the knowledge base in the field.

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)