wouldn't it be a good that anyone can express his/her ideas about a disease without the fear of rejection? Peer reviews are never rejected if we attach some big name to it even though the articles don't have any merit. Peer reviews are nothing more than controlled publications by so called experts!
Dear Syed, what you have raised has already been discussed many times and in many places. The rigor of science must be "audited" or peer-reviewed, otherwise the opportunity to be improved or validated would be lost. If you want to publish without having to go through a peer process, you can do it in a blog or in a personal web page where you can post your work open and freely accessible. Here the important thing is to have a measure of information, what to believe or consider, when building scientific knowledge. In a way, scientific journals do that, monitor a process (which is flawed, of course), but it helps to ensure that the information that is available has some validation process.
Peer reviewing always might not be good but in general it helps to improve the MS a lot. Selecting a right reviewer for the right topic is of utmost importance. Editors should play a vital part in this aspect.
Hi,
Peer review is necessary procedure to ensure the quality of the papers accepted for publication. Nevertheless, peer review is not always free of mistakes, interests, and lack of knowledge. When receiving a negative answer from a reviewer it is suggested that the author checks carefully the reviewer's comments, and compare it with what he has written.
Yes, peer review really helps to improve paper. Reviewers may also improve the overall style of the text, highlight not logically corrected sentences and suggest how to say it in a better way.. However, the process itself should ideally be much much quicker... Sometimes it takes up to a year to finally publish a work.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publications