As a fallible process since its origins,¹ peer review continues to be a widely debated aspect of modern science.² Most scientists, if not all, are familiar with the infamous “reviewer #2” (R#2), synonymous with the “bad” reviewer, notorious for excessive or nonsensical demands. The internet is filled with jokes and sketches about R#2, and most readers have likely encountered a few. While it is not always R#2, this reviewer is often blamed and, interestingly, commonly perceived as male.³ Even the most diligent and competent reviewers have likely been labeled as R#2 at some point.

While there is no consensus on the origins of peer review, most authors agree that the Royal Society of London and its renowned publication, Philosophical Transactions - established in 1665 and edited by Henry Oldenburg - represent one of the earliest well-documented examples of peer review.⁴ Naturally, the modern peer review process, as we know it today, differs significantly from its origin. Like any evolving process, it demands ongoing assessment to identify strengths and areas for improvement. The Journal of the Brazilian Chemical Society (JBCS), as an international peer-reviewed journal, is equally committed to this effort.

As an experienced author, I have encountered almost every form of peer review throughout my career. Some reviews were appreciated, whereas others left me deeply
frustrated - even stung by certain comments from the reviewers. I had works accepted without corrections (a rare exception), manuscripts reviewed by up to seven different reviewers, and, like any seasoned scientist, I also faced rejections during the peer-review process. My experience as an author is no different from that of any experienced researcher in this matter. While reviewers’ comments were often justified, there were times when, from my admittedly biased perspective as an author, their recommendations to reject my work felt unwarranted. Despite the inevitable disappointment of rejection, appeals were rare exceptions throughout my academic journey.

By contrast, I am also an experienced reviewer, having written nearly 1,500 reports over the past 25 years, by my estimation. A simple calculation indicates an average of one review provided per week. In fact, I am confident I have exceeded this average. At present, I also serve as an editor responsible for overseeing and refining the peer-review process for manuscripts submitted to the JBCS and another journal, where I act as an Associate Editor. Like any editor of prestigious journals, I understand both the challenges inherent in this task and its critical importance, not only for the JBCS but also for authors and reviewers.

Given my experience and current role, it is fair to ask whether I have been impartial in all my recommendations. Of course, this is a rhetorical question, as I have always strived to provide the most technical and impartial reports possible. However, this does not imply that every recommendation I made was flawless, though I believe most were accurate. I have certainly been occasionally labeled as R#2 - the “hated person” - in some of the reports I have written. But I still stand by my assessments in nearly all of them. As a human being, I am aware that I also have biases. All reviewers have biases, whether conscious or unconscious. In fact, there are some insightful reports that describe the most common biases the peer review process is susceptible to.^5,6 We - the JBCS editors - all experienced authors and reviewers, are acutely aware of the ongoing review crisis. We are also sensitive to biases, unintentional mistakes, and our own limitations.

Finding reviewers who are genuinely committed to providing scientifically sound and respectful reports - while fostering an honest dialogue between scientists - has become increasingly challenging. Ideally, these reports would be delivered promptly and received well by authors, a scenario every editor managing a submission would dream of. However, knowing the reality, we understand the challenges of securing even two usable reports within a short timeframe. This underscores the need to reevaluate and improve our editorial practices, particularly in selecting reviewers, handling reviews, making decisions, and addressing author appeals.

The selection of reviewers, a topic of great interest to most editors, will be managed internally by the JBCS editorial team.⁷ However, the handling of received reviews and appeals is of significant interest to our readers, particularly the authors who choose the JBCS as the venue for publishing their work. New recommendations for reviewers, an updated template for authors, revised requirements for compound and material characterization, and restructured JBCS guidelines can be found on our website. Now, let us focus on the peer review process and how we plan to improve and modernize it at the JBCS.

Rejecting a manuscript often demands more effort from both editors and reviewers than accepting one.⁸ Just considering the routine of identifying and contacting reviewers, as well as managing the review crisis, is enough to make any editor anxious - much like any reviewer receiving yet another email asking them to review a submission. To ease the burden on reviewers (and on ourselves), the JBCS editors are committed to improving our practices in several areas. We plan to make decisions more swiftly and increase the rate of desk rejections. But do not worry! If you are submitting a high-quality contribution to the JBCS, your work is more than welcome. However, as we aim to elevate both the quality and impact of the works we publish, our rejection and desk-rejection rates are likely to rise. These changes, ultimately, will enhance our journal. We are indeed making every effort to facilitate the review process and streamline the overall publication workflow. Our goal is to foster a positive relationship with reviewers, including R#2.