According to the Academy of Sciences of France (2011) "Peer review has long been the only way to evaluate researchers. It retains an irreplaceable value for appreciating the scientific contribution of a researcher in terms of originality. of thought, quality of work, conceptual and technological innovation, school creation and outreach in general.
However, this evaluation poses practical problems linked to the cumbersome nature of an in-depth examination of the files, amplified by the excessive number of evaluations requested from all sides. In addition, in many cases, peer review can be blamed for
a certain subjectivity, aggravated by the sometimes insufficient competence of certain evaluators as well as by potential conflicts or communities of interest, group effects or favoritism of any kind. All of these ethical questions should be the subject of
written statement by the evaluators, as proposed by the Academy in its report to the Minister of July 8, 2009.
The fact remains that bibliometrics can in no way replace qualitative evaluation by peers, that is to say by experts in the discipline who could however use it with all the necessary precautions. as a decision support tool.
https://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/rapport/avis170111.pdf
10 years ago, Don Siegel (Syracuse University) and I wrote a short paper in Science about the fact that scholarly publishing was getting out of hand (see paper appended). As an editor, I was faced daily with huge difficulties in finding appropriate reviewers for the deluge of manuscripts submitted to my journal. In 10 years, the situation has gone drastically worse. Peer review is vital, but it is becoming an increasingly precarious enterprise when most of us are solicited constantly by a multitude of journals to review an exponentially growing number of papers. We need to put an end to the "rat race" that has researchers evaluated on the basis of the number of articles they publish and the number of citations their articles receive. None of this makes any sense. Only when we stop it, will peer review again function as it was supposed to.
Evens Emmanuel
I am impressed by the depth of this question. It is such an important aspect of the quality research.
In my opinion, it is the responsibility of each of us as a reviewer to give the genuine feedback and also the way to improve the quality of the work of the other researchers. That is the true service and science in real sense.
Regards
OSK
A busy reviewer may give a cursory read through a paper that superficially looks good, but miss subtle mistakes. Or they may not take the time to chase down every reference, or check all the statistics
I believe peer review atm is irreplaceable. As you mentioned it is replete with subjectivity. I have issues with reviews that are under critical or over critical of an article.
1. Being under critical obviously causes publication of wrong facts which is very dangerous for manifold reasons. But with some experience reviewers can catch hold of major or more important loopholes.
2. On the other end of the spectrum are the reviews that will comment on how they do not like a sentence artistically and leave a 20 page review with changes that dilutes the focus of the paper. Sometimes asking for impractical corrections. It is at this point the editor or associate editor needs to step in actively and make judgements on which reviews to consider for final decision.
3. Then there is the conflict of interest. Or if a study directly contradicts the reviewers opinion. As long as the review process is not 100% transparent where both parties know who is reviewing the paper this is very difficult to solve.
4. The other end of the spectrum are those authors who ask their friends/ confidants to review their paper in the referee suggestions. This results in the rubber stamp review and most dangerously they have a community and this close group of people keep reviewing each others papers innumerable number of times. Thus referee selection needs to be more strictly monitored and I don't know how.
5. Another major issue is the regional bias. While I do believe that sometimes dodgy papers are submitted from certain areas of the world, but having a bias for those regions heavily influenced the researchers who work hard and want to publish in quality journals. Even if the journals are not biased, the reviewers can be. This requires the peer review to be completely blind.
6. Last but not the least is incompetence. Again an incompetent or a vindictive review should be figured out by the editor and a judgement needs to be made upon its inclusion.
On a personal note, I would like my papers to be reviewed either fully blind or fully transparent. I expect a thorough review that comments on the technicality and presentation of the paper and improve the paper to its max potential. I usually select some of the most well known scientists in the field who I have no interaction with on a personal or professional level. I chose a journal very close to the subject area of my paper to ensure quality and just review, rather than broad scope journals that have somewhat higher IF and vague reviews. Of course I never had issues with the top tier journals , they usually have a great pool of reviewers.
It is very hard to understand the scientific value of a paper if the reviewer/reader does not have the same practical experience of the author together with the necessary knowledge. Sometimes, without the relevant knowledge, even the author himself didn’t know the real scientific value of his own paper. A lot of times when we think a paper is "rubbish" and reject its publication in a journal, simply because we don't have the pertinent knowledge and experience to recognise the real value of this paper.
Dear Omkar S. Kushwaha , thank you very much for your intervention. We Professors / Researchers are living with the pandemic at a very critical time, where the way of teaching is undergoing profound changes, research and conferences both nationally and internationally are also undergoing very considerable changes. I am not worried, however the various changes observed will undoubtedly settle in the Professor / Researcher evaluation system. It therefore seems entirely justified to me to launch this discussion with the researchers who are members of RG with a view to releasing new tools today allowing the evaluators (fellow Professors / Researchers) to assess the efforts made by our community in a different way the era of COVID-19 to maintain the mission of higher education and research.
Dear Dr Laith G. Shareef, your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your reply.
Allow me to bring an element of lighting. The notion of "peer review of a researcher" expressed in this discussion does not refer directly to the articles. It is part of a larger context, that of the annual evaluation of the work accomplished by a Professor / Researcher during an academic year. It takes into account publications, teaching, student supervision, international relations, etc.
To properly situate the context in which I place this discussion, I want to borrow two quotes. First that of Charle (20099):
"The concern for evaluation has become the leitmotif of the discourse governing higher education and research (Charle, 2009)".
Charle, C. (2009). The evaluation of teacher-researchers. Twentieth century. History review, (2), 159-170.
Then, that of Durand-Barthez (2006)
"Requiring a researcher to be cited in journals with a high impact factor is a common institutional act, supposed to guarantee on the one hand faster individual advancement for the researcher himself, and on the other hand consolidation arguments for grant applications for his team (Durand-Barthez, 2006) ".
Durand-Barthez, M. (2006). The evaluation of scientific publications: from the impact factor to the reputation index. Available at: https://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_00083870/document. Accessed August 10, 2020.
Dear Dr Biswajoy Ghosh, your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your reply.
I fully agree with you "the peer review ATM is irreplaceable". The issues you raised are very real with opinions that are subcritical or overly critical of an article, or the work of a researcher, team or department, are very real.
Personally, I believe that these problems pose above all that of scientific ethics. An evaluator or a reviewer must obviously approach his work on the basis of ethics. We evaluate to better appreciate the contribution of the one we evaluate in the advancement of science. That said, the evaluator must take the time to fully understand, then identify the strengths and weaknesses of the one being evaluated and propose, in the light of the scientific theories governing the field, the elements allowing to make his work more impacful.
Dear Dr Ligen Yu , your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your reply.
For the sake of respecting scientific thought, the work of others and the advancement of science, I think that a reviewer / reader has the heavy responsibility of refusing the reviewing of an article for which he knows that he does not have the necessary competence to assess it.
In my personal view the limits of the peer review of researcher are determined by the following factors: (i) sufficient subject matter competences of the reviewer with regard to work/researcher assessed; (ii) objectivity and honesty of the reviewer, including also existence of the "safe distance" regarding eventual conflicts of interest; (iii) fairness and modesty of the peer reviewer.
Based on my relatively long life and research experience I must say with sorrow that I "met" very few really fair, competent and honest reviewers, who in constructive manner would contribute to improvement of publication or research quality. I am not going to list here the sins of reviewers, we all here have some gathered related experiences. The discussion about "limits" regarding peer reviewers can be rather endless because of multiple aspects associated not only with professional and scientific factors, but also touching cultural, psychologic and emotional aspects. And discussion taking place on a "soft" ground is - by definition - to be more likely extended in time and not so easy to drive to final conclusions. When reading contributions to current discussion I was particularly impressed by opinions expressed by Biswajoy Ghosh, who very accurately diagnosed weaknesses and positive elements regarding reviewing process. One aspect, which very strongly irritates me, concerns "regional bias". As non-native English speaker I have many times experienced "linguistically biased" reviews (in particular performed by American colleagues), who painfully addressed more or less subtle aspects of the language used demonstrating their linguistic superiority, but loosing substance of the paper or research from the focus. A couple of decades ago Hungarian mathematician Polya wrote a book "How to solve it", where he provided very simple and up-to-the-point classification of math teachers. He distinguished two kinds of them: those following the principle "look how clever I am" and those acting according to the principle "look how simple it is". Either it is a paper or comprehensive evaluation of the researcher, I would feel incomparably better, if I was assessed by the second category of peer reviewers.
It's a deep question! I think objectivity cannot be maintained in the peer-review process. Luck has much to do in this process!! When your research is a deep investigation in the non-positivist paradigm, and the reviewers have expertise only in the positivist paradigm! they may reject credible, innovative, reliable, and valid researches!! yes indeed! the instruments are not the same, the methods are not the same, the analysis process is not the same, and the way of thinking is different as well! one is deductive and the other is inductive!
Dear Dr Amine Moulay, your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your reply.
I disagree with you, personally I believe that the peer process should be as objective as possible. I will try to substantiate, taking care to address each point in a response. I will allow myself to approach the question from two different angles:
1- That of the peer review of an article submitted to a journal, and for which the journal invites you to participate in the review of the paper.
2- That of the peer review of the scientific production of a researcher or of a research structure.
Peer review of an article submitted to a journal
https://publons.com/community/academy/course-overview
Publons Academy Course
In its teachings on peer reviewing, Publons Academy emphasizes a set of principles a reviewer should apply and respect.
These principles start from ethics, intellectual probity, etc. I am very happy to have taken and passed this course. I will never stop inviting young researchers in particular to take this course.
At the Doctoral School "Society and Environment" of Quisqueya University, this course is part of the compulsory courses that PhD students must follow and pass.
My colleagues and I uploaded a project on this topic.
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Training-of-PhD-students-and-young-researchers-in-peer-review-of-papers-Registration-on-PUBLONS-ACADEMY
It's a deep question! I think objectivity cannot be maintained in the peer-review process. Luck has much to do in this process!! When your research is a deep investigation in the non-positivist paradigm, and the reviewers have expertise only in the positivist paradigm! they may reject credible, innovative, reliable, and valid researches!! yes indeed! the instruments are not the same, the methods are not the same, the analysis process is not the same, and the way of thinking is different as well! one is deductive and the other is inductive!
Peer review of the scientific production of a researcher or of a research structure.
In my career, I have the privilege of sitting on several evaluation committees for researchers and research structures. The lessons learned from these experiences allow me to retain that the need for reviewers to be and to remain objective in their analysis is imposed by the commissioner of the evaluation.
Indeed, the implementation of an evaluation process implies above all the existence of a document (Guide to reviewers) drawn up by the applicant for the evaluation in which is described: (i) the context, (ii ) the objectives and scope of the evaluation, (iii) the evaluation questions, (iv) the Evidence, indicators and criteria to be highlighted in the evaluation report, (v) the performance indicators, and (vi) the structure of the evaluation report.
In my opinion the competency of the reviewer relavant to work or Research should be sound. Proper time decision, No delay in decision. Clear position in Impartiality, Confidentiality and honesty, are basic requirements and limits for peer review process.
Dear Dr Aijaz Panhwar, your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your reply. I completely agree with you
10 years ago, Don Siegel (Syracuse University) and I wrote a short paper in Science about the fact that scholarly publishing was getting out of hand (see paper appended). As an editor, I was faced daily with huge difficulties in finding appropriate reviewers for the deluge of manuscripts submitted to my journal. In 10 years, the situation has gone drastically worse. Peer review is vital, but it is becoming an increasingly precarious enterprise when most of us are solicited constantly by a multitude of journals to review an exponentially growing number of papers. We need to put an end to the "rat race" that has researchers evaluated on the basis of the number of articles they publish and the number of citations their articles receive. None of this makes any sense. Only when we stop it, will peer review again function as it was supposed to.
@ Aijaz Panhwar
Agree:
-competency
-proper time
-impartiality
-confidentiality
-honesty
Two other:
- keeping etiquette
-providing evidence / references
Best!
Dear Professor Philippe Baveye, your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated.
I thank you very sincerely, in your capacity as editor, for your reflection. This is very relevant for us researchers / authors of scientific papers. The difficulties for editors to find suitable reviewers to evaluate the growing number of manuscripts submitted to journals pose to the scientific community the need to rethink the evaluation of works and research structures.
The dominant paradigm, as you so aptly mentioned in your answer, the evaluation of researchers by the number of articles they publish and the number of citations their articles receive, is creating to give birth at a tension (voltage).
This tension can be indicative of a questioning of the evolution of modes of production, validation, recognition of scientific knowledge, its authors and the place in which it was produced.
The current form of research evaluation that we would like to briefly examine here, with the aim of clarifying and qualifying the observation often made of a peer review of science sometimes victim of a lack of ethics, should consider the scientific community to study the consequences of low quality evaluations on the production of science.
Indeed, this tension is already causing a kind of transformation of the modes of dissemination of scientific research (emergence of: new online journals, site for the publication of preprints, altmetric measurement indicators, new economy of the circulation of scientific knowledge produced).
Personally, I believe that the scientific community will have to take into account all of these facts, as well as the growing number of young researchers (and the need to offer a way for these young people to create a career) to define new methods of evaluation and validation of research, researchers and research structures.
Dear Professor Ihab Alfadhel, your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated.
Important issue, as we are all dependent on peer review! Here some very interessting thoughts on the topic peer reviewing shared by A. Binley in the Near Surface Geophysics AGU newsletter.
Dear Dr Jannis Groh, your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your reply. I completely agree with you
I really appreciate your support to this discussion Magline Alexis. Thank you.
The limits of peer review are mainly the limited time the reviewer has to accomplish a good work. This is true for those who are overtaxed with the workload. They tend to give the reviewing work to a postdoc or even a student. The conflict of interest can sometimes be real and I have known cases were the reviewer has on purpose delayed the reviewing of a publication in order to permit someone else to publish his work first.
Although peer review has been a mainstay of reviewing but it is flawed.. unintended biases, limited numbers of competent reviewers and non-reproducable results.. opinions vary amongst reviewers for a same study..
Evens Emmanuel
Dear Professor,
Thank you for the wonderful topic of discussion.
I remember reading a novel a few years ago. It was written by a legendary novelist of my city, Late Syed Mustafa Siraj. The novelist wrote in that novel that one of the aspects of the modern day civilization is that our lives have got dependent on people whom we have not or will probably never meet. Say for example, when I was appearing for my university exams, I did not know the paper setter. But she/ he influenced my life to a huge extent.
I think, this concept is applicable for the reviewing process also. Most of the time the reviewers do not know me and I do not know them. It can be called an organized hide and seek game. How can I judge something or try to understand something without knowing anything about its creator (please read "writer/ author). There was a world famous film director from Italy, Frederico Fellini. He said that all art is autobiographical, a pearl is an oyster's autobiography. Nobel laureate poet from my city, Rabindranath Tagore said that if you are searching the poet, you should search him in his poetry only.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Anamitra.
Article The limitations to our understanding of peer review
Super article/link shared by Nadeesha Sewwandi Abegunasekara related with this query. Thank You and Evens Emmanuel sir for your discussion among RG members.
Dear Evens Emmanuel despite occasional rejections (which every researcher experiences now and then) I made overall good personal experiences with the peer review system during my 40+ years of research in inorganic and organometallic chemistry. Most often the reviewers' comments were constructive and useful and in the end greatly helped improving the quality of our manuscripts. Personally I was always interested in a functioning peer review system. That's why I regarded acting as a reviewer myself as a duty and a necessary service to the scientific community. I always tried to submit my reviews in 2-3 days, and I never gave the manuscripts to my co-workers to prepare the reviews.
Dear Evens Emmanuel
The reviewers should not give themself the right to evaluate the researcher, they should evaluate the contributions of the work.
Dear Evens Emmanuel After all, peer-reviewing is a duty for every serious researcher and a service to the scientific community. I acted as a reviewer for ca. 40+ chemistry journals for ca. 30 years without expecting any reward or certificates etc. In this context, please allow me to invite you to participate in my recent RG thread about peer-review entitled "Is peer-review censorship or necessary evil?":
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_peer-review_censorship_or_necessary_evil
The time factor for the reviewers when is limited. This can be affected on their work
Dear Dr Jean-Pierre Jost, thank you for your pertinent reaction. I totally agree with you with the issue of the reviewer's limited time. Some journals now allow a reviewer 7 days to revise a work. It is almost impossible for a professor, [with a teaching load, work to supervise, students to supervise, research reports and publications to produce or write] to do a good job in such a short time. Revising an article imposes the responsibility of reading several popeirs published in the field or on the subject. This work requires checking the originality of the work, etc.
I very much appreciate the professional ethics problem that you raise in your intervention. I believe that there is a need to deepen the reflection on this issue and make it a real subject of research.
Dear A. Kettab , many thanks for your replies. I I very much appreciate your continued collaboration.
Dear Dr Amina Sultan, your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated. I totally agree with you. In my opinion the biases are due to subjectivity. I recommend to my young colleagues who want to learn the profession of reviewer to take the necessary time to follow the PUBLONS ACADEMY course on peer review.
With the poor quality of reviews, the future of science, or the science of tomorrow, is in danger.
Dear Dr G. Stephen , many thanks for your kind reply and your support. RG offers us the opportunity to discuss several basic problems facing our profession as researchers, and for which the answers are not yet available.
Dear Frank T. Edelmann thank you for this post sharing your authoring experience in the process of receiving feedback from reviewers, as well as reviewing articles submitted by colleagues. I have never had paper rejections. I have had major and minor revisions. However, I must admit that I learned a lot from the comments of my reviewers. I took a lot of time to support the work of my reviewers to carry out my first reviews. I always take 7 to 12 days to do a service. I sometimes ask my young colleagues to do bibliography for me on the subject before I start with my review.
Dear Dr Anamitra Roy , your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your reply.
Dear Dr Nadeesha Sewwandi Abegunasekara , your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your reply.
Dear Dr Abdelhameed Ibrahim , your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your reply.
Dear Dr Safaa K. Kadhem, your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your reply. I totally agree with you.
I think proper review within given time, After review process its Recommendations, including accepted or rejected are limits of a Researcher for peer review process.
Dear Dr Aijaz Panhwar, your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your reply.
Dear Ahmed, the reviewers have the liberty to accept or not an invitation to review papers. According to the time taken in review, the maximum I accept in a month do not be higher than 4.
Dear A. Kettab " But what do you do if you receive 15 to 20 articles per month?": As mentioned by Evens Emmanuel you are always free to decline the reviewer requests when you are getting too many of them every month. In the past ca. 30 years I reviewed research papers for ca. 40+ different chemistry journals. For some of them I performed over 100 reviews over the years, while others sent me a manuscript to review only occasionally. When I receive a reviewer request from a journal and I see that I do not have enough time or the topic of the manuscript is outside my areas of expertise, I decline to review on the same day. That way the editor does not lose valuable time. Normally I also provide 2-3 suggestions of alternative reviewers when I deline.
Peer-review is crucial. It helps develop quality of paper and provides useful feedback.
It is questionable though if done by only one reviewer! Two reviewers approach is always recommended.
Dear A. Kettab "While the reviewers earn zero dollars ?? Are we working for free for publishing houses?" Even though it sounds unfair at the first glance: I'm against any payment of reviewers by the publishers. I may be old-fashioned, but I think that writing peer-reviews for good journals is a duty for every researcher and a service to the scientific community. After all, everyone expects a functioning peer-review system, and the system can only function when all researchers participate. Of course handing out reviewer certificates or giving a discount for Open Access publishing is perfectly OK. However, payment for writing reviews is critical because the institutions would see it as spare-time work.
Dear Frank T. Edelmann , I fully agree with you. Personally, I consider peer reviewing work to be a duty, and part of the whole "service to the scientific community". A researcher who does peer review is constantly updating himself, and here I think he gains a lot.
Today, platforms like ORCID and PUBLONS allow reviewers to benefit from recognition. I no longer use the traditional CV templates. In the responses to calls for tenders for research project funding, I submit instead of a traditional CV my ORCID record and my Publons CV.
PhD students and young doctors need our support in the peer reviewing of their work, I believe that we give them back what we have received from our teachers and elders and it is with great pleasure that I accept to review a paper.
Peer review can evaluate researchers, appreciating their scientific contribution in terms of originality, quality of work, conceptual and technological innovation, school creation and outreach in general.
However, this evaluation poses practical problems linked to the cumbersome nature of an in-depth examination of the files, amplified by the excessive number of evaluations requested from all sides. In addition, in many cases, peer review can be blamed for favretism and incompetence in evoluation.
Peer review can improve the quality of work. The fact of peer review compels the researcher to conduct research better and better describe its results in the manuscript.
PhD students and young doctors learn how to conduct a research answering questions of the reviewer.
Dear Dr Zahid Fazal , your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your reply.
Dear Dr Andrii Rogovyi , your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your reply.
MOOC : comment concevoir une évaluation par les pairs ?
www.https://educpros.fr
Dear Dr Yolette Jerome , your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your reply.
Dear Dr Zagir Ataev, your contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your reply.
Dear Evens Emmanuel,
So many good answers are from respected Colleagues.
Only one point I can share related to to your question.
There are so many peer reviewed Journals.
The limitation is on who are the peers.
A Journal can be peer reviewed journal by choosing some peers.
But, the standard of reviewing is a vital factor.
Thanks and Regards
N Das
Dear Nityananda Das thank you for you contribution. Allow me to share with you some arrangements made before I submit an article to a journal, I make it my duty to carry out the research of the following information: (i) the existence of a partnership between this journal and Publons, (ii) the list of members of the review board of this journal, (iii) the choice and reading of some articles already published by this journal.
Dear Evens Emmanuel,
If you want something to share, no problem.
Thanks
N Das
Peer review is greatly needed to quantify the work. It like a scientist needs another scientist to repeat the experiment to proves that it is viable.
The limitations of a researcher's peer review focus on the ability to ensure the quality of articles.
.....nice new article about peer review in nature
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03394-y?utm_source=Natu
Dear Evens Emmanuel,
This is a good question. The reviewers have his/her own experience, knowledge and ability although reviewers may want to keep objective. In practice, the reviewers' comments are based on his/her experience, knowledge and ability. This leads somehow to subjective comments.
A paper quality should be assessed according to its novelty, significance, and rigorousness. However, what levels of novelty and significance could be published? Some reviewers may comment "novelty is insufficient" and "significance is unclear" without providing related references. This may be lack of experience or irresponsible.
On the other hand, it may require experiences to assess if a paper should be "major revision" or "rejection". Generally, only papers should be rejected directly if the papers could not be achieved to a journal quality requirement after revision in a short term. Some papers should be "major revision" if some contents are unclear for the reviewers or can be revised in short term.
Some papers have rigorous problems. This should be rejected.
Dear Evens Emmanuel peer-review is worldwide accepted as a quality control and a way to improve submitted manuscripts. My overall personal experience with peer-review over my 40+ years of chemical research was generally quite good. I would estimate that ca. 90% of all reviewers' comments were fair and greatly helped improving the quality of our manuscripts. Every author overlooks errors in his / her manuscripts, and I'm glad that our papers were not finally published as submitted without peer-review. My personal list of research publications contains only papers published in international, peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps we are lucky in our field of research (chemistry) that most reviewers are proven experts in their fields. As mentioned by Junye Wang one thing that is unacceptable is to state something like "novelty is insufficient" and "significance is unclear" without providing a detailed explanation and references.
Peer review should be done in shortest possiable time with dedication
It is good to submitting one's work to others who are knowledgeable about the subject at hand can yield constructive feedback and thoughtful advice.
Sometimes it's quite challenging to understand the theoretical analysis of the author's perspective when one's background is not that familiar with the discipline.
Dear Ravee Art Phoewhawm "Sometimes it's quite challenging to understand the theoretical analysis of the author's perspective when one's background is not that familiar with the discipline." In that case it is advisable to decline the reviewer invitation right away. For more information please see this useful article entitled
Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study of reviewer invitation responses
Article Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study...
This article is freely available as public full text on RG.
Dear Evans,
I would argue that unguided peer review could yield great differences in evaluating a manuscript. A guided double-blind peer review, on the other hand, can minimize such disparities.
Cheers,
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing