Dear Colleagues,
One question scratches a corner of my mind, so I decided to ask it here. Do you think that sometimes peer review (single or double-blind) is too harsh and too cruel against the manuscript? Even though I have managed to publish some papers so far, I still get the impression that the reviewers seek a perfect paper. Even if the reviews stick to the ethical boundaries, being too hard can discourage beginners like me. Also, I think sometimes they do it deliberately to show the superiority of their knowledge and experience. Similarly, some comments can be the comments that have been provided just for the sake of providing something. What do you think about it? Thank you beforehand.
Best
Ibrahim
I agree with you Dr Ibrahim Niftiyev , sometimes some reviewers reject papers based on trivial comments that could have been fixed if the article should be revised.
At times maybe due to oversight, some reviewers asked questions about what has been provided in the manuscript already or what is not even in the scope of the study, and then the article is rejected. This makes authors feel the reviewer(s) is being harsh
Thank you dear Oluwadara Pelumi Omotayo
That is why I choose the journals very carefully; however, unfortunately, I can see that still, some journals lack the proper research environment to cooperate with the authors.
Best
Ibrahim
I am harsh on broad unprovable statements, poor experimental design, and contradictory statements. Otherwise I am very kind to do all I can to correct grammar and format text and even sometimes rewrite the overall paper structure :)
Dear Ibrahim Niftiyev many thanks indeed for your interesting technical question. This is certainly a question of broad general interest. Personally I have published 400+ research papers, all of them in international, peer-reviewed journals. Of course the reviewers look for "perfect" papers.
In my personal experience I would suggest the following criteria for a good / well-published research paper:
1. The topic of the paper should perfectly match the scope of the journal.
2. The paper should be written in error-free English.
3. The manuscript should have an eye-catching title.
4. Most importantly, the work described in the manuscript should have at least some degree of novelty. Lack of novelty (= routine work) is the most common reason for "desk rejections".
5. The manuscript should describe a "full story", i.e. the work must not be unduly fragmented.
That's about it. Of course you can find numerous guides about "Characteristics of a Good research Paper" or "What are the characteristics of a well-published paper" but this is just my personal advice.
Please keep in mind that in most cases when reviews are harsh / cruel chances are that a manuscript is flawed or even rubbish. Many manuscripts are written in poor English, report boring routine results or have serious technical errors.
Good luck with publishing your own work. Please stay safe and healthy! 👍
Dear Ibrahim,
I agree with you. Reviewers of manuscripts are often assigned to their positions based exclusively upon their research and writing expertise, but not as much concern for their ability to provide support and encouragement. In my opinion, reviewers need mentoring or supervision with regard to their ability to give feedback in a manner that is constructive and encouraging. There is a way to do this well, and some journals have mentorship programs to help beginning reviewers develop the ability to communicate in a way that is more supportive. Best of luck with your research and publishing!
Isn't the purpose of the review to seek feedback?
If you are accustomed to earning good grades, having flaws pointed out is likely to be uncomfortable. Maybe it would feel better if you looked upon it as one grateful for the reviewers' time and expertise in helping you produce excellent work. If you have fixed any weak spots ahead of time, you can be more proud of the work when it is published.
Dear Maura Zimmerschied
My main point was that sometimes the reviewers are not useful even if they spend their time and energy, and my time and energy because instead of cooperation they demonstrate their superiority. My discussion is too general. I can understand your hardships to fully understand my point.
Best
Ibrahim
Hi
I think there is no need to get discouraged.. First seek the whole paper where a reviewer has marked..then analyse ....is it justified or not.. Because I think if I sent my paper to any journal they ppl consult reviewers.. It is not like they delibratrely make errors in my paper.. Nope... Because they don't know me... We should try to learn where they have rectified
But sometimes paper goes to those reviewers which I think... May not be the concerned expperts or specialists of that background.. So this mess happens
Otherwise job of reviewer is to rectify the paper to make it more qualitattive...
Thank you dear Rifat Bhat
I am sure that I understand your points, but sometimes I think that some reviewers have a mission to disrespect. My main concern is about those reviewers who are so tacked up ruthlessly to insignificant the work. I also came up with the reviewers who suggested the improvements and edits in an acceptable way.
Best
Ibrahim
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication