There are no fixed rules for reviewing of papers. So reviewers are making their own norms. Should we have some fixed rules for reviewing papers? Views of researchers and scientists from around the world would be welcomed on this topic.
Article How to review a paper
https://aaapubs.org/doi/abs/10.2308/iace-50748?journalCode=iace
https://xiaoweixu.github.io/resources/How_to_Review_a_Scientific_Paper.pdf
Anamitra - this is a paradox of reviewing; that, generally, no training is offered. However, some journals will specify previous review experience and there then is an expectation that a reviewer has developed review skills. Still not ideal though I would argue. Publons have 'started the ball rolling' to try to address this deficit. They have created the Publon Academy (of which I am a member) where 'neophyte' reviewers are allocated to a more experienced mentor to assist them through the review process with several articles.
Dean Whitehead
Dear professor,
Thank you for your contribution in this discussion. You have raised a very vital point by stating that reviewers need training. That will help us to bring in some sort of uniformity in the reviewing process.
Best regards,
Anamitra.
Depending on the Journal involved, there will generally be an expected standard for the reviews, and, as has been said above, certain reviewing skills are required before one is selected as a peer-reviewer.
Sofie Schrey
Dear Researcher,
Thank you for your contribution in this discussion.
Best regards,
Anamitra.
Publon Academy is the best. I would encourage every Researcher to participate. You will appreciate this advice later.
Isaac Lare Animasaun
Dear Researcher,
Thank you for your contribution in this thread.
Best regards,
Anamitra.
Article How to review a paper
https://aaapubs.org/doi/abs/10.2308/iace-50748?journalCode=iace
https://xiaoweixu.github.io/resources/How_to_Review_a_Scientific_Paper.pdf
Abdulaziz Albannai
Dear Researcher,
Thank you for your contribution.
Best regards,
Anamitra.
I agree, this appears in the variation of reviews based on what the reviewer wants to see in the manuscript.
Amthal Al-Gailani
Dear Professor,
Thank you for your contribution in this discussion.
Yes, exactly so. I observed a wide variation in reviews of papers and then I thought of initiating this discussion. Probably, a day will come when there will be fixed rules for this job.
Best regards,
Anamitra.
In my field , the the reviewer considers that the article must contribute innovative elements to the field: concepts, ideas, theoretical framework.
If an article does not meet these requirements, it is difficult for it to be published.
Silvia Marcu
Dear Professor,
Thank you for your contribution in this discussion.
You have given a great direction to this discussion by what you have stated as the method of reviewing.
Best regards,
Anamitra.
Dears I think that the editorials have minimum rules about reviewing manuscripts. These rules to refer to the papers are ethics, formal aspects (structure the paper, cites, references...) and the contends. But it is true that to realise the reviewer of manuscripts is complicated, but I don't see probably that the editorials can put several international rules. For example, in my field there are different methodologies to evaluate the geomorphosites or volcanic geomorphosites and all are valid. In this case, when the manuscript used a different methodology that your, the revisions don´t centrated in what methodology used, because is valid.
Javier Dóniz-Páez
Dear Professor,
Thank you for your contribution in this discussion.
Best regards,
Anamitra.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Histology
- Fixatives