It is not only the responsibility of the authors but also the reviewers to assess the manuscript appropriately and help in improving the quality of the finished article. A good reviewer not only assists the editors and the journal but can also benefit the authors, the wider scientific community and the general readership.
See also these previous discussions:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_may_be_the_quality_elements_or_criteria_for_an_excellent_review/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_we_obtain_a_better_peer_reviewing/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_you_think_we_might_we_improve_peer_review_and_the_quality_of_scientific_publications/1
Becoming a good reviewer for a scientific journal involves several key steps and qualities:
By embodying these qualities and following these guidelines, you can become a valuable contributor to the peer review process and help maintain the integrity and quality of scientific publications.
The response was generated by ChatGPT, an AI language model.
I can make a strong suggestion on how to NOT be a BAD reviewer:
Do not "recommend" authors to cite your works.
I'm a little tired of finding reviewers that do the job just to get the authors from the papers they review to cite them.
Hello Dr Mehdi Jahangiri
When I review a manuscript, in addition to the factors mentioned by Muhammad Adeel , I think to myself: "Would people want to read this article in this journal? Why or why not?" That seems to answer my question on how I should write a review or a comment in there.
Hello, Dr. Mehdi Jahangiri my big brother. It is now time for academicians who have been reviewing articles for any reputed publication to first determine whether or not the invited papers fall inside their field of expertise. In the end, if they agree to review, they have a huge and critically important responsibility: they must evaluate the article, suggest authors with insightful feedback, and offer an honest evaluation even if the article is rejected. The reviewer's comments could enhance the paper's quality and may be published in another reputed journal, and the reviewer(s) ideas could be respected via publications.
Some of the negative experiences I've had include reviewers who, even though their paper(s) and their contents are of high quality, suggest citing their work even though it is somewhat dissimilar; others who, for whatever reason, don't want the paper published, use extremely harsh language, and choose words that are taken directly out of the Oxford Dictionary. Just as we provide lectures to our students, we reviewers should also be devoted to our work. Students will stumble to grasp the exact subject matter if we mess with the tongue. On the other hand, reviewers play a crucial role in elevating the standard of any publication and providing valuable insights to writers. Reviewers validate manuscripts by reading through them from top to bottom. Additionally, reviewers should schedule time to update their comments and suggestions as soon as possible, rather than waiting until the journal's specified deadline to update the last date. I mentioned all of this because of my personal experiences. I am grateful to several of my reviewer(s) who helped to make my articles more beautiful and standard. Cheer!
"Many academics and researchers feel overwhelmed by pressures to publish research papers, just to stay employed or to gain promotion or tenure. This can lead to salami slicing, duplicate publications, use of predatory journals, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism." From the Chapter by Glendinning, Irene, and Sarah Elaine Eaton. "Understanding and addressing drvers of corruption in academic publishing, In Second Handbook of Academic Integrity. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024. 1403-1421." To be requested on: Chapter Understanding and Addressing Drivers of Corruption in Academ...
"Even more serious corruption of academic publishing, such as peer review fraud, hijacking and impersonation of legitimate journals, guest authorship for payment, and paper mills, can be driven by poorly designed and inappropriate institutional or national incentives such as bonus payments for each paper published, sometimes irrespective of the quality to unfairly boost the publication count of unscrupulous academics.Recommendations are offered about how to challenge the causes of fraud and corruption relating to academic publishing. Applying such knowledge should lead to a reduction in opportunities for unethical exploitation of academic researchers and misappropriation of research funding."
See Also:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientific_Integrity_Research_Ethics_and_Higher_Education_Deontology_The_Senior_Scholars_Duty
Dear Mehdi Jahangiri
Becoming a good reviewer for a scientific journal involves a combination of skills, attitudes, and practices. Here are some key steps and qualities that can help you excel in this role:
**1. Understand the Review Process
- Familiarize Yourself: Learn about the journal's review process, criteria, and expectations. Understanding the specific requirements and focus of the journal will help you provide relevant and constructive feedback.
**2. Be Objective and Fair
- Assess Rigorously: Evaluate the manuscript based on its scientific merit, including the validity of the methodology, the quality of the data, and the relevance of the findings.
- Avoid Bias: Ensure your review is unbiased and based solely on the manuscript's content. Avoid letting personal opinions or conflicts of interest affect your assessment.
**3. Provide Constructive Feedback
- Be Specific: Offer detailed and actionable comments that can help authors improve their manuscript. Point out strengths as well as areas for improvement.
- Be Clear: Write your feedback in a clear and respectful manner. Avoid vague or overly critical comments, and provide suggestions for how the authors can address any issues.
**4. Stay Professional
- Respect Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript and its contents as confidential. Do not share or discuss it with others outside the review process.
- Be Timely: Adhere to deadlines for submitting your review to ensure the process remains efficient and respectful of the authors' time.
**5. Develop Expertise
- Stay Informed: Keep up-to-date with current research and developments in your field. This knowledge will enhance your ability to assess the manuscript's contribution to the literature.
- Enhance Skills: Improve your skills in critical thinking, scientific writing, and research methods. This will help you provide more insightful and effective reviews.
**6. Communicate Effectively
- Be Constructive: Frame your feedback in a way that is helpful to the authors. Focus on how they can improve their work rather than just pointing out flaws.
- Be Supportive: Recognize the effort that goes into writing a manuscript. Provide encouragement and positive feedback where appropriate.
**7. Seek Feedback on Your Reviews
- Learn from Experience: If possible, seek feedback from editors or colleagues on your reviews to understand how you can improve and what you are doing well.
**8. Participate in Training
- Attend Workshops: Some journals or institutions offer workshops or training sessions for reviewers. Participating in these can enhance your reviewing skills and understanding of the process.
By embodying these practices, you can contribute effectively to the peer review process, helping to improve the quality of published research and supporting the scientific community.
Sincerely
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Atmosphere