Hey Joachim;

Good topic. It seems that being a peer reviewer is a lot like being a juror in the US. The process is critical for the system to function, but it is also very time consuming, so we sort of grimace when the request to review (or serve jury duty) arrives. Anyway, here are a few thoughts for junior colleagues that may be helpful. (1) Don't be confrontational. I think this is the biggest mistake made by many reviewers. It is obviously important to address perceived flaws in the research, but this should be done in a civil manner -providing suggestions where possible rather than harsh criticisms. Write as if the authors know your identity. (2) Take the time necessary - and it can be a few to several hours. I generally read the paper once in its entirety, then go back through all of the details. I think it is also a good idea to write the review, and read it a few days later prior to submitting to the editor to make sure your comments are as intended in tone and content. (3) Don't review papers for which you have limited academic or research background. This does not serve the process well. Finally, I think one of the additional difficulties faced by young scientists these days is the increasing number of new "journals" - many of which are of very poor quality and suspect origin. Those of us who have been around awhile came up during a time when we knew all of the journals in our field - and still continue to follow those. I am now frequently asked to review papers from journals that I have never heard of, and after accepting reviews a few times, I now turn them down because the quality is often so poor that is not worth the time.

Hi joachim

Please check followig links

http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/peer-review-process

http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/

http://www.elsevier.com/about/publishing-guidelines/peer-review

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-peer-review2.htm

Http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/

These are good resources - however, I would also like some feedback as to how you may train your junior colleagues in doing peer-reviews.

You can try STROBE checklist

I am interested in being a reviewer, for papers or articles, if any requirement, kindly inform.

My favourite paper in this field is "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 which put light on the common pitfalls of overestimating data when drafted into a manuscript. It is helpful to me when reviewing.

Hey Joachim;

Good topic. It seems that being a peer reviewer is a lot like being a juror in the US. The process is critical for the system to function, but it is also very time consuming, so we sort of grimace when the request to review (or serve jury duty) arrives. Anyway, here are a few thoughts for junior colleagues that may be helpful. (1) Don't be confrontational. I think this is the biggest mistake made by many reviewers. It is obviously important to address perceived flaws in the research, but this should be done in a civil manner -providing suggestions where possible rather than harsh criticisms. Write as if the authors know your identity. (2) Take the time necessary - and it can be a few to several hours. I generally read the paper once in its entirety, then go back through all of the details. I think it is also a good idea to write the review, and read it a few days later prior to submitting to the editor to make sure your comments are as intended in tone and content. (3) Don't review papers for which you have limited academic or research background. This does not serve the process well. Finally, I think one of the additional difficulties faced by young scientists these days is the increasing number of new "journals" - many of which are of very poor quality and suspect origin. Those of us who have been around awhile came up during a time when we knew all of the journals in our field - and still continue to follow those. I am now frequently asked to review papers from journals that I have never heard of, and after accepting reviews a few times, I now turn them down because the quality is often so poor that is not worth the time.

Thanks Paul - I agree with you 100%

I have been writing up some of my own guidance for my junior colleagues along these lines because a lot of what I read on various journal websites is not too helpful... my thinking is more along what you're saying. There is a continuum in peer review ranging from critic to coach - the trick, in my mind, is to be helpful without attempting to hijack the paper.

The other thing I stress with my guys is that if you accept a review task, then actually do it, and do it well. Waiting until the last minute and then just pasting some random thoughts together doesn't help anybody.

Good advice.

One problem now is plain old plagiarism!

reviewers get tired of reading submissions and then finding out that the paper just got published elsewhere (usually in an open format with little or no review, so faster).

The first thing to do is copy and paste a few sentences of the introduction and paste them in google for example and find out where the inspiration comes from.

the reality of today is that many researchers must get published to demonstrate their activity, so they are likely to try to publish anything they have and thin it out into several papers distributed all over the world. This dilutes the real data and science but serves their academic aims. Real science on the other hand will get published in real journals with real editors that do their job well. Usually the reviewers are given access to databanks for their review, otherwise, internet can be used to find sources of related findings. Poorer countries often lack needed equipment to support their research, and rely on data published by others for their claims, unfortunately. There is also a tendency to model results and fit to various equations basic data that does not need this sort of treatment. Eventually, the good data will remain in the books and rapidly published data will get lost with time and the infinite growth of the net.

My five (euro)cents: The European Peer Review Guide, published by The European Science Foundation. It is written for evaluators of research funding applications, but also has good value for all kinds of referee tasks. In fact, deciding if somebody should get funding is a huge task, compared with "just" commenting on a manuscript. Link: http://www.esf.org/coordinating-research/mo-fora/completed-mo-fora/peer-review.html

This is not a new one, but raises a good discussion about peer review process:

http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/11/11/richard-smith-a-woeful-tale-of-the-uselessness-of-peer-review/