Hi,

A reviewer should be knowledgeable about the subject of the paper he is reviewing, and should be objective and prompt. I think that adhering to these qualities can improve the performance of the  research journal.

Dear Chanu Ma'm,

I recommend publishing articles only in peer reviewed journals. Peer reviewers are usually research experts and where possible subject experts too. Peer review provides the perspective from an experts point of view on the topic. Also, it helps enhance writing skills as per the journal requirements. For a beginner, peer review is helpful in using the right words, changing the context of discussion if needed and recommending appropriately to practice. I always find the peer reviewers very kind and give recommendations that can be easily adapted. Although, odd times the reviewers have been too critical and not explicit in what changes they are looking for!!    

I fully concur with the response of Shobh Rani above. In addition, As an editor, I share my frustration of how many reviewers in the developing world treat the review process very badly and respond very slowly and thus delay the editorial process.

I suggest your read my editorial:  

Beshyah SA, Elkhammas E. Manuscript peer review for emerging journals: Where we go from here? Ibnosina J Med BS 2015;7(5):155-157

The process of peer review of submitted manuscripts is widely perceived as a cornerstone of assuring quality in academic journalism .....  a good peer review will at least have clear and concise explanations of what the author is trying to convey in the beginning. It should provide rational justification for why this manuscript is important to the field and why the readers of this particular journal would be interested. A clear, concise and thorough description of evidence to support premises in manuscript and/or methods used and cogent, meaningful and influential discussion section should not be left to readers’ imaginations .......

Dear Avishag Gordon

I agree with you. This concept logic or science using by most of the editor but Shobha Rani also a very good percentage correct that reviewers are too critical and not explicit the changes they are looking for.I think that key is in editors hand whose effort should to organized and listed such reviews and put the issues in right track.

regards 

Sir Salem A Beshyah

I read your interesting editorial published around august 2015.And cote is from Broome ME.My question is sir logically is it not evidenced that authors sometime lost their originality in the hands of reviewer! Please response

regards

There are ethics that governs the behaviours of editors and reviewers. They should both protect the originality of the author such as not keeping copies from themselves, not attempting to repeat the studies before they get published, not presenting the ideas as if they are their own etc.  If you are referring to specific cases or incidents , I can only admit my ignorance. People with specific interest and professional work in combating and uncovering research misconduct can comment on this. But I would not have thought is a fair game. The fact reviewer had access to the submitted material, he or she has an obligation to cite it even if it in press and should never delay the review process for his .her own motives.  

Hi,

The blind folded reviewing are an attempt to overcome subjective and motivational judgement of scientific papers, but it is true that it is not always a sufficient measure against a distorted reviewing process. The reviewers have the ability to review a paper properly, or not. How can I distinguish a good reviewer ? Well, his reviewing should be constructive and helpful. A good reviewer should be able to observe ways to improve a paper and not decide to reject it due to few mistakes. A good reviewer should be able to detect the real contribution of the paper to the specific  field.