In reviewing a research work which should be the review priority: “to review the excellent manuscript”?, or “to make the manuscript excellent (such as regionally problem-solving), though imperfect)”? Which should be the reviewing criteria of valuation?
Rejections are inevitable but can push researchers to better research papers.
Good peer review leads to better quality manuscripts
Generally speaking, the reviewing of a manuscript should opt for the second objective - That is making the manuscript excellent. The excellence of any research manuscript or the measure of its greatness is the extent to which it has turned a particular research topic into a thought provoking platform which can possibly open up further lines of research. Top reviewers certainly play a pivotal role in making a manuscript excellent.
I believe making the manuscript excellent is the purpose of your reviewing, while reviewing the excellent manuscript is the process.
Dear friends and colleagues, thank you very much for your insightful comments. Of course the excellent manuscript is academically-ideal, but there are research topics conducted to handle a regional problems. Even though its narrow interest, such a research could be valued as "excellent", too, under achieving the problem-solving valuation criterion. Therefore, the practical viewpoint of the research, though no always epistemological robust, may make this research excellent. Which is your opinion about it?
Grigorios Kyriakopoulos - Agreed.
Excellence is subjective, and the excellence of a research article can be judged by several criteria. The most important would be the applicability of the knowledge gained and the impact that the findings have - whether it applies to a small population or a large one. Solving a regional problem would serve a very important purpose indeed, and research capable of bringing about such change is definitely worth of the tag of "excellence".
A manuscript already has all the data and the inference gained. It is already excellent or not by that virtue, The review process is formatting, streamlining, clarifying and restructuring the data that is already there.
Yes, I agree. Reviewing should be about enhancing the quality of the research work, whether it is eventually accepted in the respected journal or not. Indeed, many of the problem-solving research works have regional (or even local) relevance. A good reviewer should be able to spot this and review accordingly.
From my point of view ,making the manuscript excellent should be the reviewing criteria of valuation.
Making the manuscript excellent is the main target, even the paper is rejected, the reviewer will add some touches trying to make the manuscript is suitable for publishing in other journal.
Rejections are inevitable but can push researchers to better research papers.
Good peer review leads to better quality manuscripts
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts