How to be an effective peer reviewer for journals?
This question is aimed to understand:
1. Criteria to be an effective peer reviewer;
2. Skills needed to be an effective peer reviewer; and
3. Quality of effective peer reviewers.
Humans can only be so effective thus, peer review may need automation. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372960890_Peer_Review_Automation_Theorem&ved=2ahUKEwjmtpfYt5GCAxXiODQIHdIRAA8QFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2BJbtfVWANajvXPal3QEAD
Dear Mesay Dechasa Gudeta , there are some fine research questions which are related to this one. They include many good answers and resources...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_makes_a_good_peer_reviewer_of_research_papers
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_Write_a_Peer_Review
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_become_a_good_reviewer
A good peer reviewer displays efficient behaviors and adds value to the process. The good thing about a reviewer who does bad things is that they can change. There are quite a few ways to shift bad behaviors and habits of reviewers to become not just good, but great peer reviewers...
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/07/06/revisiting-how-to-be-a-good-peer-reviewer/?informz=1
About Peer Review and Research Integrity: Survey Insights
"The survey, encompassing 852 participants from diverse academic backgrounds and career stages, explored their perspectives on research integrity and the efficacy of the peer review process...
Does this suggest a misalignment between the feedback given by reviewers and the criteria that peer reviewers are supposed to adhere to when evaluating manuscripts? Are reviewers concentrating on the appropriate aspects? How can the reviews be adjusted to align with the necessary criteria for manuscript acceptance?"
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2024/02/07/unveiling-perspectives-on-peer-review-and-research-integrity-survey-insights/?informz=1&nbd=6f03e560-5431-4744-8998-e00223ee7a82&nbd_source=informz
A structured, journal-led peer-review mentoring program enhances peer review training
"Peer review is essential to the advancement of knowledge. However, training on how to conduct peer review is limited, unorganized, and not well studied. Thus, we sought to determine if a structured mentored peer-review program improved peer review training as measured by multiple quantitative and qualitative assessments...
A 6-month structured mentored-review program including 2 mentored reviews improves peer review training as measured by the modified RQI as well as participant self-perceived understanding of publication science with high mentor satisfaction..."
https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-024-00143-x
What to consider when asked to peer review a manuscript
"A peer reviewer has been asked to review a manuscript. The flowchart is a step by step guide to help potential peer reviewers make a decision on whether to accept or decline an invitation to review..."
https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/peer-review-invitation-cope-flowchart.pdf
https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/what-consider-when-asked-peer-review-manuscript
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematical Sciences
- Graphs