Once there was an experiment, not to mention countries. A researcher sent the same article to a magazine of a country that was at that time enemy of his country and was rejected almost automatically. He sent it back almost unchanged but he renamed and changed its nationality, this time to a friendly country. Guess what happened?

the article was accepted with the same speed with which it had been rejected before, incredible, right?

they are often impartial, but in rare times you can find an exceptional one who is not .

Kind Regards

I recently experienced those "rare times"...

and it just so happened that this reviewer's name was on the digital signature on the document. So I went to see who he was and what subjects he was working on the coincidence was amazing. Surely he saw me as a threat, to put it some way

I also think that to a greater or lesser extent there is always some kind of conflict of interest, that's why they call them, because they understand the subject, don't you think?

I don't believe they are exactly impartial. ( By the way I believe "all generalizations are wrong, even that!", That's why I keep quality journals separate.).

In my opinion the factors affecting impartiality are:

- personal dialogue,

- honesty and

- quality of journals, books and also the reviewer.

It depends on their personality. Many times they push authors to cite their work.

But how does the author know if the reviewers are anonymous?

I don't think it is possible to review each and every paper impartially. But, I believe the facts and presentations of the researchers and the principles of the particular Journal play the key role in case of rejection.

I guess it doesn't matter then whether the author is male or female, does it?

Dear Baisotti, you are intelligent enough. Its a taboo... better not to discuss it further! Thanks.

Yes, everything you said really exists

We do send search to another publication journal

Thank you

Yes,

Rabiul, what is a taboo? I am saying if is never complete impartial many reviewers could consider this factor. Also the religious factor. Non-impartiality has no limits and can be conditioned by multiple circumstances

In your case Rabiul, what would happen if an Israeli author sent an article about Bangladesh and you had to review it, would you be impartial?

Perhaps the solution would be not to know who sent it.

Pablo Baisotti, sir, I hope doesn't matter to the reviewer who submits the object female are male.

when we do like this that's the acceptable publication.

Thank you,

Kind regards.

I agree with you Paradesi

I just put situations in which for some reviewers may be impartial

I totally agree that sex and gender should not be considered at all, nor religion, nor any other kind of issue other than the article in itself

but I would like to know in what situations there is impartiality

It was mentioned that yes, that many were impartial, only because the article was within their competencies? I believe that many times other factors play in many reviewers.

Dear Baisotti, yes, I am fully agreed upon your solution.

Once there was an experiment, not to mention countries. A researcher sent the same article to a magazine of a country that was at that time enemy of his country and was rejected almost automatically. He sent it back almost unchanged but he renamed and changed its nationality, this time to a friendly country. Guess what happened?

the article was accepted with the same speed with which it had been rejected before, incredible, right?

They should! Unfortunately, it is not always fair!

Indeed!

Pablo - Yes, but not in all the cases and with all the reviewers. Impartiality ensures both the consistency and meritocracy of peer review and 100% impartiality is a myth. Research on bias in peer review raises many questions: a) Have reviewers the necessary expertise in the relevant field. 2) Role of author's nationality and prestige of institutional affiliation. 3) Reviewer's nationality, gender, and discipline. 4) Author's affiliation with reviewers. 5) Reviewer's range and level of knowledge.

Yes, I too facing this partiality, Pablo Baisotti, sir,

Thank you,

With kind regards.

Of course is as you said.

a few months ago I proposed a book that was accepted, and in fact the reviewer was very much in agreement. When I presented it, the same reviewer not only criticized it but did not even allow for the necessary modifications and rejected it. This reviewer is very important in his field and recognized and I believe that the work could have improved if I'd have had a critical, but positive vision. Did he feel threatened by me? I don't think so because I'm an academic dwarf by his side.

On the other hand, the book was accepted by other publishers with completely different opinions.

There exists no such thing as impartiality in reviewing; the best outcome is a fair and ethical reader response (quantified and/or qualitative). Only this can lead to constructive cooperation, communication and progress, reducing the (natural)human judgemental bias and competitive enmity. By applying this educational and scientific method, we can develop from knowledge over wisdom to truth, which is the ultimate goal of science. Pablo Baisotti You have pointed to an important issue, concerning the information politics of publishing. Wishing you godspeed and success.

Most often they are so

Greetings

Many thanks Stephen!

Let me quote Spinoza

Be not astonished at new ideas; for it is well known to you that a thing does not therefore cease to be true because it is not accepted by many.

The subject of the reviewers is very controversial, it is necessary to guarantee the quality and scientific rigor of the works that are published. In fact, in this sense, most of the reviewers operate. But we have all suffered or know cases in which the only important observation of the content of the article was in the references and "the reviewer suggests a curious list of references ...". Recently, an article published with a basic error at the beginning fell into my hands, how could I have overcome a revision process?

Are reviewers of articles and books really impartial?

Most of them are impartial but some might like what you'd depicted. There should be a mechanism / channel for loop back to journal editor so that s/he can investigate further. E.g.

My aim when reviewing is always to help the author improve their work, even if it leads to a rejection. When writing my review, I imagine giving the feedback to the author in person, which I hope makes the review more useful. I think the road of every academic career is paved with rejections and unfair reviews though.

It would be ideal prof. Marieke for everyone to think and act like you!

thanks!!!

Most of them are impartial

I think you are right.

It depends on the type of review procedure. Consider double-blind vs single-blind et cetera. Generally, I don't see any reason why a peer reviewer should do his job preferentially or with biased mind. What for?. However, if there's seemingly partial judgement, then we can talk of individual personality. For instance, you suggest many areas for correction (under major revision), you later find out that about 99% correction has been effected, in such case to free the authors or insist on 100% neat job is on individual choice.

Important question and good contribution from RG coleaguees .

Following

yes I think most of them are impartial

I think most of them are impartial

سؤال مثير للمناقشة شكرا جزيلا

NO IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY YES, THEY HAVE A GROUP OF PROFESSORS AND FRIENDS

ALSO ALWAYS CRITIZADE ENGLISH

SAD BUT REAL

INGRID

I can imagine that the rejection of an article by a journal's reviewer or the rejection of a book by a publisher's reviewer is a profound violation for the author. It is also understandable that the feeling of having been treated unfairly then prevails. This feeling of injustice naturally develops ideas that are self-relieving: My book is excellent, the reviewer rejected my text only out of envy, because his texts are much worse.

It's like an examination: the candidate complains that he knew everything, but the professor rejected him for personal reasons.

The most unimaginable things happen in life for a rational scientist, so I don't want to rule it out completely. But in my experience this is very rare, and there are much more obvious reasons which are sufficiently well known to me in my work as an occasional reviewer as well as a writer of texts.

I think reality is sometimes more complex, but sometimes the reasons for rejection are much simpler. I can remember that a renowned publisher rejected a book of mine - the reason I gave was that a large institute whose research was published by this publisher did not like the manuscript because I criticised some of the results. So far so good. Another well-known publisher accepted my manuscript immediately and my book was published.

We live in a world of pluralism; well-known authors who have written bestsellers tend to tell in the preface how many times their script has been rejected by other publishers.

Sometimes the criticism of a reviewer also applies and you learn from it. I have often made such an experience as a writer. Dissertations are written today, even introductory textbooks, which could really be better. The fact that today you can publish books on your own or "on demand" means that - on average - the quality suffers - that would at least be worth checking. So after the first shock I would ask whether something can be improved - and offer the text to another publisher or editor.

I think reviews don't have to tend to impartiality, at the opposite. What may harm a lectured, too is a too pasteurized review: you may read it ten times, you won't find anything harmful either interesting. So, what's the point? I prefer a reviewer that speaks out his mind, even if he doesn't agree with me, without being aggressive of course. But to select the reviews to follow, it's quite simple: a good review, even if not positive, helps you to better your text, a bad review doesn't bring in any better. I enjoyed a lot the review system developed by Wesleyan University on-line, on creative writing courses. You learn how to review fairly because you know your own text is going to go through reviews, too. Being mean as a reviewer is to declare yourself as the most probable target.

I find it interesting that the answer to this question, which always contains a claim to objectivity and generalizability, constructs more than many other questions with the given answers a reality that lives exclusively from the personal experiences of those concerned. The question is whether an objective answer is possible at all.

And about books reviewers, at least in France, I can testify on how it goes for having saw it in direct. The publisher' secretary had a pile of manuscripts sent by mail on her desk. She was counting: one, two,three, four, five, hop, to the garbage and would have a look on the sixth. And they get 20% of our rights. I much prefer Amazon, that gives me 70% of my rights and don't jerk around with my texts.

Added to all this, are situations that also cause tension. If a proposal for a book is presented, the filters begin to pass and everything goes well, after six months the external reviewers begin and two say that the proposal (not the book) has no problem and could move forward, and two says the opposite, so the editor send the proposal to another and the time passes. it could be that it goes well and one continues with the project, but at the end when the full manuscript is sent to one more reviewer - and already go 6 -, it says that it does not like the final text. To all this, the author lost more than a year and in many cases the argument must be updated again.

would it be a solution to send it to multiple editors?

at the same time!

I think most of them are without discrimination

I think most of the reviewers for articles or books are impartial. They may be some cases where they can be partial and one cannot deny, but however, each one has one or other way to represent or present the issue. All of us should think in a positive way eventhough a person thinks adverse. A positive thinking and feeling makes one to move forward. This is to remember that It may be one or other, all are not same

Often times they are impartial, sometimes they prove to be humans too. Few of them may recommend their articles to cite. They criticize esp when it's single-blind based and that attributed to personal grudges against the settings of the authors, on and on. We cannot totally do away with this area, but it's barely hidden, minimal or seemingly fettered.

It depends on the personal qualities of the reviewer.

I think they are impartial. Sometimes you jusy wonder the basis for which the article was rejected. Some times too, the reviewers do not seem to understand the statistical methodologies. The responses from them reveals this. These kind of experiences are somewhat discouraging.

Yes, most of them, but not all

Dear Pablo,

I am glad you have brought this discussion to a public form like RG. As Prof. Nirmala says, at times, we sense partiality in the reviewing processes; the articles, if sent to certain reviewers are rejected outright. However, many a time, our articles have landed in the hands of eminent reviewers who have encouraged us, motivated us, and shaped the manuscript to a totally different, appreciable form. But, yeah, I have sensed partiality with some journals (Editorial desk), which reject articles, which I suppose is on the basis of the brand value of the manuscript (Either the corresponding author's reputation or the organization/Instituion's reputation, is valued). As a peer reviewer myself, I am glad that some journals have resorted to maintaining anonymity of the authors and I hope this might help the present generation of authors.

Often times they are impartial, sometimes they prove to be humans too.