Dear Editors,
I'm interested to know that, are you inviting early-career researchers (Ph.D. students, Post-doc fellows or young researchers) for peer reviews along with a senior reviewer?
If YES, please share your experience. How were their reviews?
If NO, why you are not considering young researchers for peer reviews?
For me, I think editors should consider Ph.D. students, Post-doc fellows or young researchers for reviewing a paper along with a senior reviewer. Although, many editors are hesitant to invite early career peer reviewers, but as one puts it, they will try to write the best reviews because they tend to be insecure and tend to over-compensate and to be very careful in doing a good job.
Looking forward to your views, and thanks in advance.
Ali
Ali - Publons offers a free peer review mentoring programme through their review Academy - https://publons.com/community/academy/
I have been an Acacdemy member for over a year now and assisted several emerging ECRs with their review process.
Ali Raza -
Usually, editors select peer reviewers who have research record in the field concerned (published 2-3 papers on the topic), have a PhD or a postgraduate degree, and willing to be involved as peer reviewers. PhD students could help their supervisors in reviewing papers they are invited to review. I encourage you to ask your supervisor. However, this job will be completed under his/her name. The discussion of the revision with your supervisor will be an excellent opportunity to learn about the peer-review process. Good luck.
Ali Raza,
I think it is necessary to invite early carrier researchers including both PhDs and Postdoc fellows for peer reviews. Early carrier researchers are more enthusiastic and passionate about reading and doing research practically. They will contribute more efficiently and do their job with more focus and on time due to less administrative duties.
Ali Reza - Further to my response to the selection of peer-reviewers, it is essential to note that many times we invite peer-reviewers based on the list of references created by authors. Simply because the authors cited them and the study is related to the work published earlier by these authors. Therefore, they are the best peer-reviewers to report on the submitted work.
Dear Dr. Samy Azer,
Thank you so much for your valuable answers. Yes, a Ph.D. supervisor can polish their students.
Secondly, if an editor keeps inviting reviewers based on the list of references created by authors. Then, how an editor can help early-career researchers?? This scenario should be change and a senior editor/reviewer should involve early-career researchers with them, and help them to boost their skills and experience.
Regards
Ali
Hi Ali - all the 'new' reviewers that I have worked with in the Publons Academy have done well. I suppose that the fact that they are interested in learning the process with otheras - as opposed to just learning on their own - and enroling into the Academy etc means that they are already motivated and not afriad to have someone critically appraise their work. My main observation is that they generally offer very comprehensive feedback. That is fine and commendable if you are reviewing infrequently - but if you review for many journals and/or take on several at once - then 'summary' appraisal becomes more the 'norm'.
To me, during PhD processes, the core focus must be on the training for PhD research project, with getting an ability on how to find the research question?, how to answer it? How to write technical manuscripts for conferences and journals, finally to focus on writing technical report for 3 to 4 years long project as a PhD Thesis.
During the PhD process all of your research efforts are under reviews by your supervisors, conference/journal peer-reviewers and PhD Thesis examiners.
Based on this busy PhD schedule, I am wondering, how do you want to be a judge for others when you are passing under the judgements of others by yourself through the training process?
To me, a PhD student can never/never be my judge, because I can never get any productive comments from a PhD candidate for improving my manuscripts or future research guide lines or highlighting my mistakes for sure.
There is however., no doubts for Postdoctoral researchers to be peer reviewers.
Ali Raza -
Thank you. You may be right. However, in my earlier answer, I am saying that there are several approaches we use to review a submitted manuscript, and it is not one approach. Regarding the peer-review process, in journals with high impact factor, not all submitted papers will undergo peer-review, the majority will be evaluated by the Editor and Associate Editors and decisions will be made. Only manuscripts with potential for success will be sent for peer-review, usually 4-5 peer reviewers. In journals with no JIF, or not listed in Scopus, or PubMed, the story is entirely different. Often, these journals are looking for any submission to publishing. So we cannot say that the level of evaluation (scrutiny) of selection is the same across all scientific journals.
I do not think so .Evaluation of manuscripts are supposed to be only from professors of the same field for several reasons .
Peer reviewers are selected based on some factors, such as areas of expertise, availability, recommendations, experience, etc.
Not Ph.D. students, but young Ph.D.s. They usually perform well when doing reviews
I think, more senior and skilled person should invited for review...
It really depends on the motivation and qualification of the applicant; it is a casuistic matter of talent and skills.
But you can ask your students to make preliminary comments as part of the training and then you check the comments .
NO ONE SHOULD NOT MAKE REFREE TO RIVEW ARTICLES FOR A JOURNAL UNLESS IONE HAS SUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE AFTER pHd
It is needed to train your students how to evaluate different kinds of manuscripts .
It is not right to rely completely on your Ph.D student evaluation for any manuscript .
Reviewers are supposed to be professors in reputed journals ,but less than this position,they may help .
I edit the ACBSP Region 8 Journal. We are one of the overseas regions of the US Business School Accreditor ACBSP. We hold a conference once a year in November, and getting enough qualified reviewers is always a challenge. Most of the people who participate in the reviews are established academics, who are interested in helping our conference be a success.
Several times I asked my Ph.D students , to add comments on chapters of several scientific books ,but being re read .
Early career researchers are the future of research, reviewing, and publication
It is good to encourage and practice your students to do good job in the future .
Some early career researchers and academics are reviewers to many reputable journals with high impact factors
I think young researchers are more passionate about new challenges. Many senior reviewers asked their research scholars to review the manuscript and add comments, I m telling this with my personal experience.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism