Beyond, academic qualifications, almost all researchers have area of specialization. I recently submitted a manuscript and the corrections from the reviewers were based on outdated information and the editor decided against this manuscript. I feel reviewers need to be trained beyond their academic qualification
In my opinion this is a completely unacceptable offer. Editors are people who have to fill in the next issue by selecting from the stream of proposed texts the relevant to journal profile, as well as the to relevant criteria that can be read on the website of the this journal. They are now working full time. If very rude, then they should cut off weak and unsuccessful articles. At the same time, they take into account the opinion of reviewers who are accomplished and successful scientists. As soon as reviewers stop working and writing themselves, then the real problems will begin.
If there is a need to publish works that have not passed into a decent journal - that is, a multitude of “journals” that are ready to publish any nonsense if would be paid.
The author’s task is to prove to the editor and reviewers that his text is worth publishing. If he cannot do this, then this is his problem, we live in real concurent world.
Yes, I consider that both reviewers and editors need some kind of training, although that never happens. Some reviewers accept to review papers which have topics they don't understand. It is a non-ethical situation, but unfortunately it does happen. Also, many reviewers use some standardized formats for evaluation without a deep reflection on the content of ideas. Unfortunately.
Hi Britianu,
You just wrote my mind. It’s so sad that a lot of reviewers indeed accept papers they dont know much about.
I can give a lot of examples from experience of reviewers comments that is off point
Many reviewers accept the responsibility of reviewing papers they have little or no idea. At the end of their review, they accept or reject the manuscript in error.
On this note, reviewers and the editors need training, which would get them informed on this matter.
Many a time editors reject paper on the very outset without giving credence to original work that may contribute to real progress, for the reasons many of gave excellent rationale. This has happened to me & the reasons that I find that they aren't able evaluating since knowledge of the subject or not seeking clarifications from authors. Hence they along reviewers make judgments merely scanning articles without actually going through them deeply, as pointed out by earlier commentators. Maybe they are overloaded by having to evaluate so many papers within a very short period of time. However, that's a real disservice to original authors as well as to scientific community as a whole.
Who knows authors who should really have been recognized probably Nobel Prizes were actually never had any publication that was accepted, by reviewers who weren't scholars qualified to evaluate but mere bureaucracy supported by their clouts wielding power or authority to accept or reject as they all please. Objective evaluations with editors, reviewers - matter that will have to be addressed seriously suggestively undergoing training to ensure they are giving close to 100% attention to textbook reading, checking, & working out details. They will have also to justify with key analyses why they accept or reject papers or part of papers. A prudent reviewer or editor will suggest areas authors may clarify or communicate. In this way, they can ensure breakthrough original authored papers are given their complete review.
I do not think that editors and reviewers should undergo additional training. Moreover, reviewer should not be narrow specialist in this field. It is enough that he is successful and qualified researcher.
The task of the reviewer is not a complete check of the article, but an analysis of whether the article is scientific and new, whether the author of the article uses scientific arguments to prove his hypothesis. In fact, the reviewer must be a qualified reader. If the reviewer does not have full information to evaluate the article under review, well, he has a reason to refresh own knowledge. It is much more important, in my opinion, for the reviewer to be psychologically prepared for his role. He must be curious and friendly. The most terrible thing is the feeling of being a great scientist who can discuss any topic in details. In my opinion, it is also undesirable when the research topic completely coincides with the reviewer's own field of interest. Often, in these cases, the reviewer treats the work of others as an unwanted outside intervention into area that belongs to him personally (or to his "friends") .
In a sense, the reviewer should help the author to improve the logic of the text, but not prevent a publication.
The reviewer's task is not a full confirmation of the author’s position, but a confirmation that this one expressed in the article by scientific way, to make sure that the author's text is new, provable and verifiable, ie scientific, as published article is not the ultimate truth, but just material for subsequent discussion, confirmation or refutation by the scientific community.
There are quite a few cases indicating that reviewers wete not up to the task of quality review. Training should be provided, at least in a form of notes how to do a review for a journal.
I agree with additional training, but also reviewer should be person with experience in certain topic and he should review only this topic - it is very responsible work especially in these days, when everybody is checking reviews. Also what should reviewer training contains? Do you have any ideas?
Hi everyone,
In my opinion, i think employing full time reviewers and editors in future will help in terms of Journal publication. These people can be retired professors that will concentrate on paper publications.
If they are fully employed, training will be easier to administer.
Hi,
I disagree with those who think training is not needful. If you are in a wide research field such as Energy, you may understand that being a professor in solar energy doesn’t mean you know the latest about some solar technologies.
One of my manuscripts got rejected lately as one of the reviewers pointed to the fact that solar PTC can’t go above 773K. I am sure he is not a research in this field. As of 2016, a research was published that showed the max temperature of solar PTC perfomance and it was stated that sodium liquid can go as high as 1100K.
This and many more are some of my reasons for posting this question.
In my opinion this is a completely unacceptable offer. Editors are people who have to fill in the next issue by selecting from the stream of proposed texts the relevant to journal profile, as well as the to relevant criteria that can be read on the website of the this journal. They are now working full time. If very rude, then they should cut off weak and unsuccessful articles. At the same time, they take into account the opinion of reviewers who are accomplished and successful scientists. As soon as reviewers stop working and writing themselves, then the real problems will begin.
If there is a need to publish works that have not passed into a decent journal - that is, a multitude of “journals” that are ready to publish any nonsense if would be paid.
The author’s task is to prove to the editor and reviewers that his text is worth publishing. If he cannot do this, then this is his problem, we live in real concurent world.
Interesting question and replies.
I assume that everyone involved in reviewing article has been informed one way or another how it works.
Otherwise, why would the editorial team consider this person for this task.
It would be interesting to research how these teams select reviewers though, I think.
Hi @Konstantinos,
This is not the case in every situation. I have received invitation to reveiw papers that are not related to my research.
I think specialization is a bit more serious in Some fields than others
I think they should be reviewing only research papers relating to their field of study or expertise.
There have been so many interesting answers and opinions on this subject. I may just add that there should be an established code of practice and guidelines for reviewers that would be made publicly available. Reviewers then must use this template in the review process.
@Olusola Bamisile. I also recieved such invitations and i declined to review. I think all reviewers must be careful before accepting to review. But what is the solution of this problem?
@Syed Asad, i also do such if it is not related to my field but i dont think all academicians do such.
I have repeated declined to review for those mushroom journals that are only interested in article publication charges and not the content and quality of the paper. I feel some of these journals send papers for review in order to fulfill obligations and not to accept the comments and corrections of the reviewers. Reviewers. i feel should look carefully before accepting to review articles.Yes some reviewers may not have the latest updates but still they still have relevant ideas that will definitely improve the research write ups sent to them.
Dear Olusola,
You ask, say, a hot and highly debated question: "Do you think Reviewers and Editors should be trained specially".
My answer is Yes theu do. Your example of having submitted a manuscript and the corrections from the reviewers were based on outdated information is often the case. As you know, the editor-in-chief almost always, if not always, accepts reviewers' reviews regardless of their quality, rigor, accuracy, and the like.
I have serverd as a reviewer for many prestigious and first tier journals. When reviewing a manuscript -- I only accept to review manuscripts in my area of expertise and do not accept to make reviews for, say, predatory journals, which are more interested in your money than the quality of your paper -- I try to perform a constructive and candid evaluation. In my experience as reviewer, I have known of good papers that were rejected and poor papers that were accepted. This happens when editors and reviewers were not be trained specially. As I see it, there is much inbreeding in the so called double blind peer-reviewer system.
As an author of several papers published in first-tier journals, I also know than an empirical paper regardless of its quality is more easily published than a grounded theoretical paper. This greatly results from the unfortunate publish or perish policy. If this were not the case, there would not be too many dispensable predatory journals. As professors want to be promoted, then they try to publish a lot, even in predatory journals. According to this policy quatity matters more than quality. As an author, I refused to publish, say, in predatory journal. You know, to prepare a manuscript to be published involves hard work and even to spend some money. Is not it immoral to have to pay for having our hard work publsihed? It is generally the case that if we, say, go against a scared cow, then we hardly have our papers published.
Needless to say, both as an author and a reviewer I have known of good reviewers and editorial decisions. It is obvious the case that the blind peer-review system has many limitations and is far from being a perfect system. Will it be a better system?
Kind regards,
Orlando
Journal articles present advanced findings in a field of research. It is logical to assume that the reviewers are not as updated about a manuscript topic as its authors are.
The experienced reviewers care more about the research settings, comprehensiveness of the study, presentation and contributions of a paper.
No, it comes naturally, with experience. The more you work with papers and review them, the deeper you understand the whole publishing process.
I think they should have experience in the field of reviewing to be appropriate in their thoughts and produce neutral and correct ideas and views.
Not necessiraly but it would be better to be trained... Personally, my comments as a reviewer for many forensic papers were based for a large extent on my career experience as a forensic analyst... therefore, without any training, as long as the reviewer has the same speciality of the topic and the needed knowledge, the comments would be most probably helpful tobe taken into consideration by the author
It depends on the experience, the training and the patience of the reviewer to collect the data
In my own opinion, aside learning more through experience in reviewing manuscripts, there is still need to go through training (it may not necessarily formal one). Just to get some tips in manuscript reviewing from the so-called experts for better reviewing experience.
It could be online short sources on manuscript reviewing for reviewers and editors like Publons Academy, Elsevier also has online short courses like that. Mostly, they are for gratis (free of charge). Just find time for it, you will be a better reviewer/editor.
Yes, I strongly recommend that on the basis of good publication and capacity for potential reviewer
Reviewers and editors need not necessarily go through any additional training. By virtue of their expertise in the subject matter they have been chosen to serve as an editor or a reviewer. Their qualifications and prior publications are duly taken into account prior to their selection for the job. There may be some areas that are new or burgeoning or otherwise not well researched or understood. In such cases perhaps the editors and/or reviewers may need a crash course that would benefit them during their evaluation process of the article.
No need to give prior training for the job.They are selected on their academic merit and are supposed to provide inputs on each and every aspect of publication.
Hi, sure. For reviewers for example, there is an academy for them in Publons platform. 10 lessons were learned step by step.
Interesting experience. Please visit
https://publons.com/community/academy/
The problem is that most Journals lack having reviewers because this unpaid work. Sometimes they complete the process by sending the article to non-specialized persons.
It seems it is quite rude or illogical asking editors and reviewers to undergo specific pieces of training on the task. yet, the academic field itself is a training and learning process, and learning and development are continuous. You can't depend on your past knowledge or expertise in a fast-changing era like today's world. On the other hand, journals and publishers also change their procedures, processes and requirements of publications. Therefore, having specific knowledge, skills and training in publishing, reviewing and editorial process beyond the academic qualifications would be an added value.
Anybody interested in such learning could self register here for this self-paced online course: https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/certified-peer-reviewer-course
Journals itself having problems of finding suitable reviewers in specific areas of interest, so the publishing process taking ages in some journals. Therefore, having more people are trained in editing and reviewing would be an added value to ease the process.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking