The secret pleasures of peer review

The work of reviewing manuscripts is something many academics complain about; it’s mostly uncompensated labour done for rich publishing conglomerates. Journal platforms do offer reviewers a means to get their reviewing work ‘recognised’, but it is more data collection than actual recognition or compensation. It’s common to hear, usually from male academics, that we should put in as minimal effort as possible into these things, be lazy and even uncooperative with journal editors who invite and assign us as reviewers. Because doing peer review is ‘not worth it’. After many years of being in academia and volunteering in this work, however, I’ve forged my own path on this issue and arrived at my own opinion that it is ‘worth it.’ Mainly because I actually enjoy reviewing manuscripts. Reading other people’s work is an opportunity to evaluate the development and directions a field is taking, staying abreast with new research basically. Early in my career, I am ashamed to admit that I used to write cutting remarks on a poorly prepared manuscript. Guilty as charged! Protected by anonymity, I felt powerful somehow. But over the years, I moderated my first impressions with more empathy, and began writing longer, usually a page-long paragraph, in 11-point Calibri, review of the first version of a submitted manuscript. Plus the annotated submission. Yes, it is a lot of work. These reviews follow a formula: appreciation for the author(s)’ interest and contribution to the field/topic, what I think the manuscript is about and what it has achieved, then perhaps what it failed to accomplish, and what the author(s) can do to address and improve. The power invested in the work of peer review is not insubstantial; you may be reviewing the manuscript of a prominent scholar in your field as much as you are evaluating a graduate student’s submission. Peer review is community work; of keeping the process of knowledge production chugging along with the level of care and seriousness it deserves. It is a reminder that academic work is interdependent and reliant on the expertise of our peers. And yes, even in my busiest times, I would accept 8 out of 10 invitations to review the work of others, with pleasure.

I thought I’d do my own recognition and list the journals I’ve done peer review for since 2020. It is an incomplete list, because I’ve reviewed manuscripts for years before 2020, though below is what I have recorded data for:

Journal reviewer:

1. Feminist Media Studies
2. Modern Asian Studies
3. South East Asia Research
4. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies
5. Journal of Gender Studies
6. Hypatia
7. Indonesia and the Malay World
8. Indonesia
9. Literature and Theology
10. Plaridel
11. Dance Chronicle
12. Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies
13. TRaNS: Trans-Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia
14. Ethnicities
15. Sojourn
16. ARIEL
17. Third World Quarterly
18. Culture and Religion
19. International Journal of Asia Pacific Studies
20. Continuum
21. Language and Communication
22. KEMANUSIAAN: The Journal of Asian Humanities

Book proposal reviewer:

1. Palgrave Macmillan
2. Bloomsbury / IB Tauris

Grant application reviewer:

1. European Research Council (ERC)