I have been asked to review, in average, 4-5 papers each month for the manuscript submitted in physics, engineering, and science journals. Scientific paper re-viewing is a process where a reviewer is invited to review unpublished manuscripts. Usually, an editor of a journal has the power to decide where to send the manuscript. Reviewer is an unpaid volunteer. Once he or she accepts to review it, a reviewer must unconditionally review the manuscript. Before I accept to review the manuscript, I ask myself if I am an expert in the field. I always recommend alternate referees to the editor, if I feel that I am not the expert on it. Timeline is very important to me. Once I was asked to review a manuscript within two days of email request, which I declined to review. I take the review process very seriously and I never make general comments, instead I provide specific comments / recommendations where I feel the manuscript needs revisions. This way, I feel that that authors are directly benefited from my review. I strongly recommend any one not to review a manuscript with prejudice or bias. To avoid biases, I encourage reviewers to make deliberate effort to review the manuscript in front of them and not in front of the authors. I am not intimidated by the name of authors. Any concerns I would have about the manuscript. I address them directly to the editor. Any comments, suggestions, recommendations?
Scientific paper re-viewing is a process where a reviewer is invited to review unpublished manuscripts. Usually, an editor of a journal has the power to decide where to send the manuscript and reviewers are unpaid volunteers. The best way to avoid biases is to make deliberate effort to review the manuscript in front of manuscript and not in front of the authors. If any concerns, its always good to address them directly to the editor.
Thats right Prof.Rizal. Reviewing process makes improvment of manuscript quality.However, some reviewers suggest only to cite the a lot of their paper. I think it is not the good quality of reviewers(greedy for citation).
I think this is a case specific. The manuscript should have a balanced list of citations of new works (recently published) and old works (say carried out some 10-20 years ago). In some cases, manuscript published some 20-30 years ago would still be relevant to cite.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts