Serge, this is a good point you make and is important for the peer review process. When I decide to review an article/study for a journal, I do so because of some or all the following reasons;

I am finding that as our research group achievements increase, that I get a significant extra number of requests to review articles and I just do not have the time available to give (or I could decide to leave my family but I don't want this to happen).

However, I find that I am often the only person willing to spend a decent amount of time reviewing the paper and then because of this there enters an element of subjectivity to the process. The idea of a number of reviewers is to overcome the difficulty of some people giving very scant review information and also to get more consensus to a new piece of work. I think some new strategy needs to be devised to encourage more researchers to give up valuable time for this process, however worthwhile it may become.

An apparent good review comes from someone who is experienced in that particular design methodology and spots obvious errors. A bad review possibly comes from someone who does not take the time to read the submission in detail or who possible has poor experience in the d=area and so cannot give good advice. Its a tricky business!!!

Dear Serge Dolgikh ,

I think results also need to be valid and based on valid methods. They should also be of sufficient importance to be published in the journal to which they have been sent.

If a result is original, valid and of sufficient importance then the editor may be more sympathetic to support the author to write it up to sufficient quality as this would be in the interests of the journal.

Kind regards.

That's an interesting point Peter is raising about the importance and quality of the research; certainly it's up to the editor to decide to what extent any submission fits within the scope and expectations of the edition. From a more holistic point of view though, provided the research is 1) novel i.e. advances the field and 2) valid that is, there's no flaws in argumentation, should it not in itself constitute a scientific result, that has been peer-reviewed, regardless of the editor's decision? Given the number of publication options, such a result can be posted as peer-reviewed, with a reference to the review possibly, and be used by other researchers facilitating overall progress in the field.

In English (my subject) many of the well-established journals are very well established indeed (not a few have existed for many decades), and thus they tend to have a kind of profile that makes it reasonably possible to predict what KIND of article they like to see submitted and might welcome. So if would be unwise to offer them something well outside their range. That is not to say that they will publish you if you are WITHIN the range. The judges are demanding, and get offered many really very good articles (I am speaking both as a contributor and as a referee). So, for the best journals, your journal needs to be REALLY good AND within the range expected. That said, there are a good many quite respectable but less "prestigious" journals well worth publishing in, and any beginner might be well advised to submit work to one of THEM. But still, the work needs to be very good, and it remains JUST AS important to submit an article that matches the profile of the publication. Do not get unduly depressed if you don't succeed at once. Be prepared for disappointments. If a journal simply returns the paper that IS depressing. However, several gives reasons (and listent to those), while a number will actually quite helpfully suggest how you might improve your work, sometimes with publication in mind, but also quite often without asking for re-submission but simply to assist developing academics if they can see promise. Finally: at times a journal can be COMPLETELY wrong or unfair. Learn to live with that, and move on. If your work is good enough it WILL get published somewhere, so persist.

People in the former category feel involved, and try to justify their reactions thoughtfully (and specifically, with some evidence) to themselves as well as you. The second category of people cares far less for what you have to say (it tends to be biassed and intellectually not helpful) and thus is not much use to you. It would be completely wrong to see all professionals as equally dedicated, unselfish, knowledgeable, etc. OVERALL, if you admit to a good many really reputable journals, justice will be done to you, but by no means every time. Of course, the standard of your own work may also vary. Personally I have more often found that the JUDGES varied. Thus people who publish much, like myself, re-submit an article to another journal if they strongly feel that a rejection is "wrong". If your critic does tell you useful things you should be really grateful, and act on the advice given.

Not necessarily, each reviewer has their tastes and preferences ("philias and phobias"); as they say in Spain: "Every teacher has his booklet"

As I say in my statement: if people "submit [I wrongly used "admit"] to a good many really reputable journals, justice will be done to you, but by no means every time". There are so many outlets that if NOONE accepts your work the likelihood is that your work is not good enough. The statement CLEARLY implies that there ARE people who will misjudge you, but that if you have something of real value to publish some journal or other will print your work. The statement does imply - very clearly - that indeed each reviewer has their tastes and preferences. How else would you interpret my words?

There's another perspective to this question. With preparation of submissions and consideration for a first-echelon edition taking much effort and time, at some point it may become a matter of practicality, plainly if one doesn't have a large team to take at least a part of the preparation work and many alternative channels for publication these days one has to make a call, to spend limited time on the research or pursuing publication. What is meant is a more flexible way of conducting peer-review with a virtual community of reviewers so that the result that was reviewed could be posted if the author so desired, immediately without a long lag (that can be 18 months or even longer in some editions) as in some fields the pace of progress may surpass that of the publication.