For some journals reviewers can see other reviewer comments once theirs are submitted, and I think this is useful and should be something journals are encouraged to do. I find that having me as a reviewer being able to see other reviewer’s comments, such as done by Cell, often teaches me how I might write better reviews. Other journals publish the reviews with the published paper such as EMBOJ. Do you find these things useful or not? Do you have other ideas that would improve peer review? What would you do to make this better?
Peer review should be there as this attribute of a journal maintains its standards. Whereas It is tedious and take much time. Meanwhile what i want to add up here....that I have seen lots of papers published out of the aims and scope of the journal which put a bad impression on the reader or seems little bit awkward.
As for other ideas on improving peer review, see e.g. the question https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_we_need_Peer_Review_20_and_if_yes_how_should_it_work
I appreciate Arthur's question and the web cites he notes. However I would not support the comments by these cites. Open peer review is something that tends to restrict most reviewers as the Nature web site and experiment noted. Credits or points for peer review might encourage more to review papers but those most attracted by such systems would not necessarily be the reviewers one would wish to have. Most of us realize we have 3 reviewers for most papers and grant proposals so we need to review at least 3 papers or grants for every one we submit. I also think we loose more from open peer review than we might gain. So I am asking for your input and ideas on how you might improve the system.
OK, John, here's one suggestion that does not break the existing peer review system but adds to it (and I've added it to my question too:) ): create a channel (say, a secure form at the journal web site) through which the reviewers could anonymously and directly contact the authors (and get response from them) in order to clarify something or check some subtle details not included in the paper. This was proposed by Igor Belegradek at this discussion: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/50947/on-referee-author-communications
Peer review should be there as this attribute of a journal maintains its standards. Whereas It is tedious and take much time. Meanwhile what i want to add up here....that I have seen lots of papers published out of the aims and scope of the journal which put a bad impression on the reader or seems little bit awkward.
I believe that since our scientific moto is "everything is visible under the sun" , the submitted manuscripts should be given more consideration that in the model we are actually use:
1. The reviewers should be "eponymous" and non "anonymous". This can resolve also issues of contrast of interests .. that so many times have come to the surface...
2. Reviewers should be experts in their field .. not just authors who have published something in their field of specialty. Unfortunately many Open Access journals tend to identify reviewers from a list of submitted papers .. This means that the person who decides on the structural and scientific basis of a paper might be well qualified to do so.
3. It is an excellent policy to access the comments of other reviewers .. quite often we missed a point that someone else understands better.
4. An interaction between the associate or section editor and the reviewers. I have rarely seen this .. even in cases of contrasting reviews ...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Impact Factor