Conditions to be accepted as an editor require the ability to generate new concepts and a certain level of experience measured by the H-level. Journals are also expected to arranges for subject matter experts (SMEs) to review their articles. In light of the collaborative processes that are crossing several fields, is the H-level still the best measure of an editor? Is the SME still the best peer-reviewer when we know that there is a limit on the burden of SMEs to review? Arguably, there are some topics that require specific knowledge (e.g., molecular biology, neurosurgery). Is the current trend in multi-collaborative projects making it better to focus on the editor’s ability to read the paper for understanding, adherence to protocols, structure, content, and the logical progression of supported thoughts leading to findings, recommendations, and conclusions?
Ultimately, authors have been blind to their reviewers. But if the present course is changing to open review, then perhaps the foundation and credentials of an author/editor-peer review process may have to change, too. I welcome your thoughts on the necessity of Author/Editor same subject matter expertise.
I don't necessarily agree with this "push" of yours, and I don't know what you mean by "H-level." I have been asked to be a reviewer (mostly for technical conferences and a few journals), and I have no idea what my H-level is; I presume to have been selected because of my many publications, and dedication in trying to submit responsible reviews. Regarding subject matter experts (SME?), here's a quote I resonate with:
From The Week:
6 Nov 2018, p. 17: “An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.” — Physicist Niels Bohr, quoted in the Harvard Business Review
I've made my share of mistakes, and I believe that's one of the best ways to learn. In general, I certainly do not think a good reviewer needs to be a SME in the field in which s/he is providing a review.
B.E. White First, thank you for your answer. Second, "the h-index is an author-level metric that attempts to measure both the productivity and citation impact of the publications of a scientist or scholar. The index is based on the set of the scientist's most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other publications."
There are several ways to see your H-index but they involve gathering your literature profile on Google Citation, Publons, or Kudos. Otherwise, it would be difficult to determine your H-index (sorry, I said level in the initial email). This can be time-consuming but once it is done, it serves as a permanent, searchable record.
Thank you Beth Ann; based you your guidance, I spent about 20 min trying to find a web-site location that let me ask about someone's h-index (of me in particular) but was unsuccessful.
B.E. White Dr. White, perhaps I was not clear when I said, "they involve gathering your literature profile on Google Citation, Publons, or Kudos." Perhaps CREATE AND UPLOAD your own literature would have been more precise. Unfortunately, the sites do not automatically gather your profile or manuscripts. But, you have to create the site at one of the locations I suggested, then upload your manuscripts, and then they will generate an H-index from known citations in the database. You can also send them confirmations of citations if you have them. I would start with just the basics first--get those docs loaded. It can be a bit tedious at first, but the effort will make your work more visible. Also, if you have kept your 'thank you' notices from publishers for reviewing, once you create a site at Publons you will be able to forward them to that profile and they will credit your reviews, too. I do not know if you have a grad student or assistant who can aid in this process, but that might help the cause. Good luck.
Oh, I see, Beth Ann: I feel it's too much work for me to do that. I've been on a site called Research Gate for a few years, where I have uploaded a number of my publications, and there supposedly hundreds of people at least aware of or looking at my stuff. That's sufficient for me at the moment. Thank you again.
B.E. White Yes, adding the docs to RG is the same process necessary for the other sites. But the other sites will be searchable and generate an H-index that is a recognizable metric in the industry. Have a good day!
The inability to reproduce results of papers, even in "respected" journals, has been in the news recently. This argues for more rigorous review standards and suggests that SMEs, not just editors, need to be more engaged in reviews. Of course, many, if not most, reviews are done pro bono, so there may be a practical limit to how detailed a review can be. But the concern is a loss of confidence in research conclusions.
Heather Douglas Thank you! I do not recall ever seeing multiple blind peer review of the same paper except when they are posted for conferences. I think, however that it is a great idea to make certain that similar items were addressed across the span of the paper. I hope that more journals opt to share the reviews with other blind reviewers because I believe it does improve the individual and the profession.
Leonidas A. Papakonstantinidis
Thank you for your detailed and helpful response!
Fred Y Robinson I agree. I wonder if there is some official definition of what makes a peer-reviewer a SME? Perhaps that digs further into the root cause or actual question.
An editor per se need not be an SME but the peer reviewers must be SMEs. Only then they will be considered competent to judge a piece of research work. There should be some form of incentives for peer reviewers to take the review process very seriously so that they might provide the best possible review using their SME credentials.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking