There are many request from the editors to review the scientific papers. I need suggestions to improve my skill as a reviewer for the scientific manuscripts that I received for review.
Be cool, take it easy, don't forget to keep on being positive : if it is a paper which is to be published, consider you are there to help the author improving his/her work, by bringing references, suggesting changes, and so on... Don't be too harsh : to review a paper is not only a question of science/knowledges, it is also (and sometimes more than anything else) diplomacy. The scud-style "it is written with the feet, and it does not say anything new" some people like to use does not bring anything interesting. So, no easy irony and a lot of conditional "might be, may be, could be" ;-) might be a good start hmm ? All the best, bon courage,
Be cool, take it easy, don't forget to keep on being positive : if it is a paper which is to be published, consider you are there to help the author improving his/her work, by bringing references, suggesting changes, and so on... Don't be too harsh : to review a paper is not only a question of science/knowledges, it is also (and sometimes more than anything else) diplomacy. The scud-style "it is written with the feet, and it does not say anything new" some people like to use does not bring anything interesting. So, no easy irony and a lot of conditional "might be, may be, could be" ;-) might be a good start hmm ? All the best, bon courage,
As a reviewer try to avoid making harsh comments as Yasmina has pointed out. Even you can also improve the MS with reasons why the changes have been made.
If you have relevant literature you can provide them too if the author(s) missed them.
Always use Track Changes mode so that author(s) can easily follow the changes.
One more important suggestion: do not take excessive time to review.
Thanks.
I can agree with both of the above. I also add:
1/ It's far too easy to be critical, especially if you disagree with s one of the contents. Reviewing is not about you proving you have a superior intellect to the author. It about you recognising the strengths and weaknesses of what they've done, praising the former, seeking to help with the latter.
2/ Always remember that your judgement may be wrong! So be as kind and as helpful as you can. If the paper is obviously rubbish, it shouldn't have been sent out for review at all by a quality journal. So it probably isn't rubbish if you have it.
3/ Always remember that the final decision on publication lies with the journal's editor, my you. A good editor will override a poor quality review, if it's a quality journal.
I have had bad reviews of my work which have been overridden by the editor. I've had other bad reviews upheld by the editor! That's the same editor at the same journal, excellent work by that person!
I've given a scathing review with major recommendations for change. The next version was wholly acceptable. I heard later that the other reviewer had the same experience. So I guess we both did a good job on that one!
Good luck, it's an important job!
Christopher NOCK
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers