With my little experience in the publication career, I have come to realise that there are a lot of Reviewers who review based on what they write and how they write. This sometimes affects objective reviews.

In much the same way, there are so many Editors out there making edtorial decisions based on their subjective experience (what and how they think it should be done).

Personally, I think you don't have to review or make editorial decisions based on what and how you think it should be done but what the standard is and scholarly evidence.

Objectivity should always be the key.

Similar questions and discussions