Some have honest and genuine REVIEWERS, but not all journals/conferences have.
Reviewing a Paper is really an effort driven, time consuming but an innovative learning activity, while honestly pointing the correction in paper to prepare a quality paper.
Selection or Nomination of a person being REVIEWER for most of the Journals and Conferences is debatable. Even quality impact factor journals have lacking practice. Usually, Reviewers are selected (1) without verification of their qualification, familiarity, expertise, caliber, and self research productivity, (2) anybody with knowledge background is eligible to apply as Reviewer via Journal or Conference website, (3) the Editor usually ask Author to give names of 03 to 04 names to review their manuscript, is a biased practice.
The Journal/Conference editorial team should maintain their standard to develop registered pool of reviewers with proper verification of their qualification, familiarity of field, expertise, caliber, and own research productivity, and Reviewers should be paid some nominal amount for their effort, time and expertise towards review. Usually journals/conference charge heavy amount from Authors but accept their manuscript with no transparency of review/no-review but release "Letter of Acceptance" to Authors.
Reforms, and check and balance is indeed needed.
Generally in peer reviewed journals there will be good reviewers. We send research articles in that opinion only. If our paper is accepted, we think that review is good, if not accepted, we think bad. All the reviewers are good researchers also and each one should not forget. They simply do not reject. Rejection or acceptance depends on number of papers received, area of research concerned, same work published etc. Hence, we should always have positive bent of mind.
By and large reviewers are honest if they are reviewing for a reputed journal. They will point out what issues need to be addressed and in many cases they will conditionally recommend publicaiton provided their wuestion are addressed by the author satisfactorily.
Ammar Mejheirkouni
Yes, in the quality journals like Elsevier, Wiley , Taylor & Francis,
Thanks
Mostly yes , but again , nothing is "perfect ".
Both the authors and reviewers have human variations .we
It is a quality indicator of the journals to have the right, idealistic and honest reviewers. But I still can't believe that social relationships and dialogues are ineffective on this platform.
Each respected magazine is supposed to have good reviewers and the relationship has no role in the calendar
To be sincere, we need good and honest reviewers to put our work in good shape.
Unfortunately the answer is no! However, there are more good and fair than bad and unfair!
Unfortunately it is not always the case! However, good fair reviewers are always out there for us!
Do journals have really correct/ ideal/ honest reviewers? It is a hypothetical statement and it is generally assumed that majority of reviewers are good. A reviewer is generally expected to review the research as per the journal guidelines as well by using his own specialization and area of knowledge. Since review needs some hard work and takes time, compensation for same may increase the chances of a fair review. There is also possibility of increase in the number of reviewers as many journals face shortage of reviewers.
Some have honest and genuine REVIEWERS, but not all journals/conferences have.
Reviewing a Paper is really an effort driven, time consuming but an innovative learning activity, while honestly pointing the correction in paper to prepare a quality paper.
Selection or Nomination of a person being REVIEWER for most of the Journals and Conferences is debatable. Even quality impact factor journals have lacking practice. Usually, Reviewers are selected (1) without verification of their qualification, familiarity, expertise, caliber, and self research productivity, (2) anybody with knowledge background is eligible to apply as Reviewer via Journal or Conference website, (3) the Editor usually ask Author to give names of 03 to 04 names to review their manuscript, is a biased practice.
The Journal/Conference editorial team should maintain their standard to develop registered pool of reviewers with proper verification of their qualification, familiarity of field, expertise, caliber, and own research productivity, and Reviewers should be paid some nominal amount for their effort, time and expertise towards review. Usually journals/conference charge heavy amount from Authors but accept their manuscript with no transparency of review/no-review but release "Letter of Acceptance" to Authors.
Reforms, and check and balance is indeed needed.
I think in most of the cases, "yes".
Most of the reviewers are well expert in their subjects, and they review any content honestly. Where there content is not valid, or not proper justified, they ask for the justification. It's our responsibility to defend and justify the information provided by our side, because it is our work. But again no body is perfect, so the referees are. Some times they are expecting some thing else according to their own view, so they are not fully convinced by your justification
Mostly yes.
But, to be sincere still there is a human behavior effect on final decision in some cases.
Do journals have really correct/ ideal/ honest reviewers?
My personal experience is most of them are professional except few are less ethical e.g. outright reject a manuscript without any reason, review with the intention to cite their articles, not following review deadlines assigned etc.
Each one has to go positively. We submit and publish articles sending to journals that the quality and review standards are good. All are human and each one has one or other perspective in the mind and all the reviewers are all almost honest. If our article is not accepted in other journal, there are so many other journals we can go ahead. If the paper is of quality, acceptance or rejection does not have any difference, if it is accepted it is ok or if it is rejected this can be sent to another similar journal.
Performing review of a manuscript is truly a hard work which must be done accurately. Reviewers need to be UNBIASED while judging the quality of the manuscript. Most of the reviewers do the review works honestly but not all.
I think that COMPLETELY BLIND REVIEW (neither the authors nor reviews should be aware of one another) will play a central role in the ensuring UNBIASED review. However, it is true that even well-reputed journal avoid COMPLETELY BLIND REVIEW. It means that there is some room for reviewers being BIASED while performing the review work and recommending the manuscript.
Honest and accurate reviews helps to make our work better. Personally i do learn a lot from reviewer comments and this has helped me improve on my research work. This doesn't however negate the fact that human factor can come into play atimes.
A good review of an article is laborious. Sometimes good reviewers are missing. A good magazine has collaborators who make it bigger.
This depends on the strength and impact of the journal
Some journals are late in making the decision because there are no reviwers and you have got, after five months, a decision of rejection
Manuscripts which we have viewed ,study for which we have made our own observation & subsequently & find that it may not be our true path & in this line we may feel that our manuscripts is rejected .
This is my personal opinion
This is in most cases according to the nature of the manuscripts.
Those in relation to news that raise the selling rate are no need to be rejected and accurately evaluated
Vagueness* Importance= rate of news spreading.
Sometimes I'm not convinced that peer reviewing is objective and that reviewers were chosen due to their expertise in the field of research where the manuscript belong.
Definitely the choice of a good journal determines the careful work of the reviewer employed when evaluating an article.
Certainly depends on the journal and its accuracy in the selection of good scientific articles.
It depends on the reputation of the magazine, but if it is solid, it chooses good reviewers...Agree with author
Not every time. Sometimes reviewers show biasness sometimes it turn into a fair decision. Vary from reviewer to reviewer.
If we are interested to publish our research article in a journal, we look into a good journal, hoping that our article is published. The reviewers are also like us, may be the subject experts and having lots and lots of constraints. Acceptance or rejection depends on several factors on several occasions. All of us should assume and be confident that all are fair reviewers.
Depends on quality of paper and quality of reviewers, if accepted both are good, not accepted one is good, try to improve which is not good, eithet change journal or improve more and more quality of paper
Desk-rejection of manuscripts is a common occurrence in academic publishing. Manuscripts getting desk rejected can be disheartening and demotivating for authors, especially early career researchers...
Why manuscripts get desk rejected and what authors need to keep in mind to avoid desk rejection of their manuscript.
Here, you will learn about:
- What is desk rejection?
- What are the key factors that influence editors-in-chief/editors to reject your manuscript
- Tips on how to avoid desk rejection
- How to deal with desk rejection of your manuscript...
https://www.enago.com/academy/how-to-avoid-desk-rejections-of-your-manuscript/
The good arbitrator and review exists but a small percentage, many prefer to reject, rather than put notes to accept or improve the quality of research
I sincerely followed the discussion. Once a genuine manuscript is rejected, at times it's unfair, but one should look at the reasons given for corrections.
Yes some journal have smart and honest reviewers. It is depand to journal reputation.
Very important is the choice of a good magazine. There are cases in which the editorial team of the journals is ineffective and inefficient, perhaps for reasons of administrative nature. In some cases, it has been known that more than a year goes by and then the papaer's rejection is notified due to lack of arbitrators. In other cases they do not even read and approve. Definitely the selection of the magazine is decisive
Each individual sends a good paper to a journal, hoping the paper be accepted. If it is not accepted, one cannot blame the journal. Hoping that, the journal is good, a person sends. This is to remember that reviewers and editors are like us. They do not also want to reject the paper.
Almost they have honest reviewers but, in few cases they are not especially in the front of new scholars.
Reputed journals have very good reviewers. when our articles are rejected, we can see the comments of reviewers which are helpful to improve our skills. Please see the file attached :
Accepted or rejected manuscripts is part of our life, ignore it and move on. There will be so many negative, unwanted, painful experiences in this world, you have to just ignore those and move forward. Of course you should carefully review the reviewers comment and correct thereby, because it is very difficult to change others but very simple to change yourself.
Most of the time yes, but sometimes no valid reason is given for rejecting the manuscript, that's when one feels let down.
Hi,
THough most of the reviewers are honest enough, some just ridicule the work and write us off in no time. Getting through the review process is becoming a gamble/tedious task. We are bound to satisfy the reviewers so much that, at times, I wonder if the article has diverged a lot from its intended objective. Furthermore, if you do not have a brand value (institute, corressponding author, country), prepare yourself for the worst decision (It has happened many a time to me and my colleagues). Now the blind review process is working to an extent. But, a google search would yield the identity of the authors to the reviewers. These are my perceptions, which I though I may share in this forum.
I agree with u Navnit Kumar Ramamoorthy Thank u very much 4 ur answer
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction