Speaking as an Editor-in-Chief who reads many hundreds of "raw" manuscripts submitted to the journal every year, I believe strongly that the review process is absolutely essential and invariably improves a paper. Don't forget the important role of the Editor in tempering (where necessary) review comments and providing guidance on how to improve a paper. Also, don't forget that authors can "push back" against review comments or assertions they do not agree with - but that push-back must be based on sound science. Use it sparely and wisely...

The paper is like a public meal, it should admire many people, not only you.

I hope you understand me.

Greeting.

Hi Mohannad, I understand you. However, personally I feel the creator, the author, you and me should be decisive when it comes to content:)

Hi, Kjetil,

I have enjoyed the rare privilege of having three manuscripts published with virtually no review notes. I have also received over 70 reviewer comments on one manuscript that went through a second statistical review offering an additional 50 reviewer notes. On reflection, I believe I learned more from the latter experience than from the former.

I suspect we all believe that some reviewer comments are baseless, but I still support the blind review process. I have revised manuscripts to comply with reviews with which I did not completely concur, but I do not think that I would damage a manuscript simply to get published. There is a fine art to revising in such a way as to satisfy the process without damaging the product, but as in all such conversations, this might be my disciplinary context rather than yours.

Hi Peter,

You are definitely correct in the fact that it is a fine art to keep the paper quality reasonable stable when 2 or 3 referees (often with conflicting views) are to be satisfied. Sometimes even when one ore several of the reviewers clearly have missed the points of the paper. I would say I am able to handle this fine art, at least i did before. However, now, I get so tired, so extremely tired :)

Dear Kjetil K. Haugen.

Clearly the problem you raise is caused by excessive workload and the desire to publish too quickly. Personally, because of my perfectionist character, I do not usually encounter that problem, since I am unable to terminate a job as long as there are improvements.

Nevertheless, I consider that your suggestion to create a site for publications in the process of development and revision may be a good idea, since time is a fundamental parameter in a finite life, and in this way the creations, even if they are only embryonic,they can see the light in a minimum time.

In short, I support your idea of creating a site to publish under those standards, comparable to the beta versions of the software.

Actually, I did not really suggest a site. I simply told you that I have found a couple of 'not-so-good-journals' that satisfies my need to publish material quickly without the hassle of too pedantic reviewers. However, you suggestion of a site, might be a good one:)

In my limited experience, the reviewers' comments usually improve the paper. On occasion, they don't, but that's the exception. If one thinks the quality of the paper declines by adopting the reviewer's comments, then one has to decide which is more important, having a not-great paper published or a (one believes) great paper not-published.

There are times to stand on principle, of course. But, in my view, the paper-reviewing process is not one of them, esp. if one doesn't yet have tenure. JMLTHO (Just My Less-Than-Humble-Opinion).

Sometimes, yes.

Another good strategy is still to do the required revisions and publish in a higher ranked journal AND ALSO to deposit the original version on Research Gate or other repository. Thus, the readers can choose to read or refer to the version which is better for them. 

I think the question to reviewers should be, how can you improve on this paper? If the reviewer cannot answer that question, then their critique should be given a lower weight or discarded. In that way, the editor protects the creativity of the author.

the reviewer must add an improving to the artical not change in the arengment only.

In most cases I don't - but sometimes it happened. In general, I think that the review process tend to improve significantly the quality of a paper.

Speaking as an Editor-in-Chief who reads many hundreds of "raw" manuscripts submitted to the journal every year, I believe strongly that the review process is absolutely essential and invariably improves a paper. Don't forget the important role of the Editor in tempering (where necessary) review comments and providing guidance on how to improve a paper. Also, don't forget that authors can "push back" against review comments or assertions they do not agree with - but that push-back must be based on sound science. Use it sparely and wisely...

I guess there is always a slight touch of subjectivity involved, since the reviewer might want to see different perspectives being presented than the author decided to focus upon, It might pass as an attempt to improve the paper, but the author should not feel pushed to go in another direction just to please the specific interests of the the reviewer or publisher.

Again, the author would need to think very carefully about these issues. It may be that the greater experience and wider perspective of the editor and reviewers gives them a perspective on the paper that the author doesn't necessarily have.

I have found the reviewers' comments to improve my papers. In earlier years, I would groan at receiving numerous comments -- however, I greatly appreciate the time taken by these reviewers to carefully read and respond to my work. At the end of a lengthy revisions process, I always recognized the value of the input and felt I learned from it and that my paper was much stronger. There have been times when I have had reasons to not agree with individual comments and have respectfully provided my reasons for this disagreement (which have always been accepted). There is something quite wonderful about having one's peers take the time, voluntarily, to review and provide feedback on one's work. I especially appreciate the generosity of spirit and the ways that all my reviewers have carefully framed their feedback to be constructive.

With extremely rare exceptions--and I do mean EXTREMELY--review boards exist to help scholars like us enhance the quality of the papers we submit for publishing consideration. It is essential, therefore, for us on the receiving end to give their review comments the strongest possible consideration and, especially, to be appreciative of the fact that other scholars are donating their time to help us. I'll be the first to stipulate that on rare occasions, feedback can be, well, brusque. In my own case, I have perceived brusqueness a couple of times, but on each occasion I found, after some clear-headed and unemotional reflection, that the feedback was constructive and helpful, even if it stung a bit.

Scholarly research is very hard work, something that, as a practitioner before I went into a PhD program more than 34 years ago, I did not appreciate. But then, as I began to learn about the research process, my view changed. Conducting good research and then writing about it in a readable and engaging way is extremely hard work. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't tried to do it. To be sure, there are scholars who make it look easy. But they can do that only because they excel at what they do.

Before I went into that PhD program (which, to my lasting regret now, I didn't finish), I had no clue about how difficult the creation of new knowledge is. I never knew there was so much to the process: learning to spot 'holes' in streams of research, then creating research questions, writing hypotheses, gathering data, deciding which research method(s) might be appropriate to the data gathered, and then, of course, writing papers based on the research. Very quickly I came to see research, not as art or as science--although it indisputably has facets of both--but as craft, like painting, doing surgery, and building fine furniture. And the ONLY way to get good at a craft is to do that craft, preferably under the tutelage and supervision of someone already accomplished in it.

One can read about it. One can think about it. One can pontificate about it. But there is no substitute for doing it. Then, and only then, is one engaged in what being a scholar is all about: the creation of new knowledge. That is a nontrivial, demanding, and noble undertaking. I hold those who can do it well in the highest possible esteem. We all should.

Warren D. Miller. Thank you indeed for a very good answer. It is always possible that some questions I ask have some provocative sides :)

Some time yes and other no depend on the interesting of the reviewer.

Thank you, Kjetil. I really appreciate your kind words and spot-on observation.

Segue: Ahmed, I agree with you, of course. Thank you.