We recently had the opportunity to interview Dr. Randall Lockwood, former Senior Vice President of the ASPCA, following his win of the Animals Outstanding Reviewer Award 2025.

The Outstanding Reviewer Award is presented annually to recognize reviewers who generously contribute their time to reviewing papers and display thoroughness, professionalism, and timeliness while doing so.

The following is an interview with Dr. Lockwood:

1. Could you give us a brief introduction to yourself and an overview of your current research?
I received my Ph.D. in comparative psychology in 1976 and have, for the last 40 years, specialized in human–animal relationships and animal welfare. I was a college professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook for 8 years, Vice President of The Humane Society of the United States for 21 years and Senior Vice President of American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) for the last 20 years.
My work, for 40 years, has involved working with humane societies, law-enforcement agencies and environmental groups worldwide, providing consultancy on the interactions between people and domestic and wild animals. I have testified in various trials involving animal cruelty or the treatment of animals in the context of other crimes, including dog fighting, homicide, child abuse and domestic violence.
Since 2019, I have retired, but continue serving as a consultant for multiple animal welfare boards including ASPCA for Policy, Response and Engagement activities and the Morris Animal Foundation Animal Welfare Advisory Board. I further serve on the board of several organizations, including the National Link Coalition, which explores other types of cruelty, and for which I review a lot of journal articles, as well as The Biodiversity Group which works on locating previously thought-to-be endangered and extinct species—especially less glamorous ones.
Staying busy even though I am “retired” allows me to stay in touch with current science. I find the process of reviewing papers and proposals to be very educational; it forces me to think and read more.

2. Why is the peer review process important to you?
There is so much disregard for science and a lot of bad reporting by non-peers commenting on research. Peer review helps keep research legitimate and allows new science to be exposed to the right level of scrutiny. I see myself as a teacher—not as a gatekeeper.

3. What do you think the biggest benefits to reviewing are for the peer reviewer?
One of the biggest benefits of reviewing as a peer reviewer is getting first-hand knowledge of research that’s not yet published. What I review is directly relevant to at least one of the organizations that I work with, so I can take note of these papers and pass them onto interested colleagues once they have been published. It is all highly relevant to my colleagues who can stay at the cutting edge of research.
I can also compare the ASPCA grant proposals I receive against papers I am reviewing; it is a good way for me to see what the strengths and weaknesses are of ongoing research.
It is also part of my responsibility to educate authors, considering I have had such a long career and gained a lot of experience. Reviews of weaker papers should take longer, to help authors improve their work and train them to do better science. There is an increase in first-time author papers across all journals and these authors need the most help; this is where a good reviewer can be helpful in educating new researchers. I may also recommend to authors more appropriate outlets for their research to help them find their correct readership.

4. What are the key factors and aspects that you consider most when reviewing a manuscript? How do you ensure that you are fair and balanced in your review?
I firstly look at ethical issues, especially when it’s an animal paper—typically these won’t be ethical issues as the IRB or IACUC has already been involved—but it’s so important that I check. I also look at how well the authors’ conclusions match the data and how useful the research is; is it a trivial or painful elaboration of the obvious? Is it of interest? Papers can be more important than they first appear—you must understand why the paper was done. The papers I am more inclined to want major adjustments on are those that do not have a clear rationale. I also like to see papers that are innovative and use new techniques as well as papers that are written well and bring together good science with interesting questions.

5. What are your top tips for writing a helpful review?
I recommend doing some background reading, especially for interdisciplinary research—read some of the references that the authors are using. You need to be acquainted with the field and the research question at hand. I decline reviewing a paper if it is too far out of my area of expertise. Being a peer reviewer is a serious responsibility. You should always question your review reports including any excessive uses of self-citations. You need to help make sure, as far as possible, that the paper has good integrity and has a well-rounded reference list and awareness of the field.
My advice for authors looking to impress reviewers: you should try to get some peer review before you submit your manuscript—ask your colleagues for feedback, present at a conference, show your work at a seminar or consider using preprints. You should read your paper like an outsider as much as you can. Consider the presentation of your results well and make sure the story your data tells is clear.

6. What led you to review for Animals?
Animals is very relevant to me. I have published in Animals before and am familiar with the journal—I was reading it before I started reviewing for it. I don’t know how I came to the attention of the editors in the first place, but I was invited based on having published in these areas before. I get to see a wide range of authors’ work—some that I was not previously familiar with, and I have found new collaborators once I had reviewed their work. I usually choose to remain anonymous, but sometimes I will get in touch after the paper has been published.

7. How do you think publishers can help ensure a healthy peer review system?
I think it’s quite healthy now, at least for the journals that I review for. The structure of the report form is important for ensuring all essential areas are examined. The selection process for peer reviewers is also important to ensure that reviewers fit the paper’s topic well.
One of the good things about Animals is the rapid turnaround time—the right combination of deadline flexibility and speed. Some reviewers might find that that adds too much pressure, but usually doing a review within a week is not a problem for me. Some journals’ turnaround times are much longer. I also like the open access element of Animals, and thus how fast dissemination is. I think that’s very important. Hard copy journal publication is very expensive and slow. Open access is a great way to disseminate information accurately and quickly.

8. If you could change one thing about peer review what would it be?
It was nice that this award came with some money, but the peer review process is voluntary. Peer review is sometimes the one part of the whole cycle that does not benefit from the process—and I think pay for peer review can undermine that in the case for journals (book publishing can be different). I don’t think peer reviewers should be paid, personally. Reviewer vouchers are a good hybrid. I have used them for my publications in Animals before.

9. What would you suggest to early career researchers looking to get involved in peer review?
You will be invited to review a paper based on your own productivity and expertise. Volunteer to review—show off your expertise. Consider getting to know some editors; reach out to them, and you may be selected to review.