So far, few papers of mine have been rejected based on the reviewer’s opinion, they normally state: “In my opinion, the method is wrong”, “I believe this article has low novelty”, “I think the proposed methodology is not good”, these comments are provided without a scientific based justification!
But still, editors “in high impact journals” would accept that as an appropriate reason to build upon their final decision.
Any thoughts!
Yes, I have also similarly observations.
The editors and reviewers too normally state: “In my opinion, the method is wrong”, “I believe this article has low novelty”, “I think the proposed methodology is not good”.
Yes, these comments are being provided without a scientific based justification!
I agree with you. This type of behavior is not good at all.
Yes, I have also similarly observations.
The editors and reviewers too normally state: “In my opinion, the method is wrong”, “I believe this article has low novelty”, “I think the proposed methodology is not good”.
Yes, these comments are being provided without a scientific based justification!
I agree with you. This type of behavior is not good at all.
Currently due to severe competition in publishing business editors can ignore reviewer comments, if article fulfill journal demands
Responsible reviewers should give specific and scientific reasons for rejecting manuscripts
Yes. While peer review provides a valuable quality sieve for the overwhelming volume of manuscripts submitted for publication, in its current form it has become a costly and distorted barrier to publication. In the short term, I see three key challenges:
- Recognition: We need better mechanisms to recognize and reward those who invest time and effort in constructive reviews. This likely requires greater transparency in review, although there is lively debate about how to do this in a way that avoids potential pitfalls (such as the introduction of unconscious biases for reviewers who have been positive about your papers).
- Portability: of peer review to reduce the collective burden on the community. Again, implementation models are difficult to agree on because individual journals have such different requirements. One solution might be to develop a common core for reviews to cover the rigor of experimental design, execution, analysis and reporting to make at least part of a review more reusable from one journal to the next.
- Scope: With increasing multi-disciplinarity and big data, it is becoming more and more difficult to peer review and it may no longer be realistic to consider that peer reviewers can review everything.
These challenges, and particularly the second two, support the case for greater decoupling of publication and evaluation. In future, perhaps we need to define what peer reviewers look at prior to publication and what experts in different aspects of the paper need to look at post publication. Arguably, this need will be further driven as preprints continue to mushroom. This is an important new service for working scientists, but one that requires us to rethink how much and what type of evaluation serves the community well at different stages of the communication cycle.
Best Regards Mahmoud Dhimish
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals