This is a most difficult job in this world. Because being a good examiner, It our duty to read the manuscript/ proposal in a very careful and sincerely before declaration of the result.
What Do you think as a reviewer or examiner?
From reviewer's perspective, agreed it is not an easy job as we are responsible for the outcome of a manuscript submitted for review. Agreed with other scholars' comments on good methodology to review a manuscript. From my personal experience, I'd embraced the following attributes when I review a manuscript:
As a reviewer I used to look for the actual contribution of an article, methodologies adopted and there presentation style. If the paper is having really good contribution as well as an acceptable level of its presentation by using a sound methodology then I can recommend for publication.
Dear Rajeev!
Really. It is difficult to maintain integrity, meticulousness, objectivity at a time when a lot of scientific everyday work, which "pulls" the time of the examination of the scientific work. In these cases it is necessary to take a decision on the consent to be an expert or to formulate a waiver examination.
Valdimir
When I was doing my M. Tech my one of the senior professor, As he give the answer sheets to me of the students, he advised me to be an examiner, I should try to understand that what is the writer (Student) want to say and then I should evaluate the answer sheet.
He also advised me to keep this attitude during the review the paper. He said that we should try to understand to problem and proposed techniques for the same. We did not say that this is the garbage or their is nothing new in this work, because the authors are not fool. but It may be the possibility that he/she may facing some problem those reviewer does not face in his life and he want to give the solution for the same.
He also suggest that in the last we should make the comments sheet in which we should suggest to the authors the there are some important comment which is really need to incorporate before the accepting this paper (If reviewer find some thins interesting in his/her opinion and want to accept the paper)
If reviewer want to reject the paper and he should also give some comment to improve the manuscript.
As a peer reviewer, more important than "accept" or "reject" is, for me, to provide suggestions to authors so they can improve their manuscript AND learn how to carry out and write up hypotheses/methods/results/conclusions.....one of my early papers I thought was so "earth shattering" that I submitted it to the prestigious ARCHIVES OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY..it was rejected...but Daniel X Freedman, the editor, wrote me a letter explaining why (eg, conducted in a state hospital we could not control for confounders) and suggested another journal that he thought would accept it and how I might rewrite it: I learned more from that rejection letter than from the many acceptance letters I have subsequently received.
Article In memoriam Daniel X. Freedman
As a reviewer, you can give some good suggestions for the improvement and eventhough if you reject or accept, it is solely depends on respective head. But in the case of examiner, you can suggest, accept, reject. I think so.
This is a very delicate task. I think the views are different about it.
For me reviewing a paper depends on the following points:
- The originality of the work,
- The used references,
- How the author defends his work
- The sequence of ideas
- The results and their significance
I do always try to do a decent peer review. Of course, it must be a work (article, book, thesis...) within my field of expertise. I have noticed recently that many conference papers were reviewed by people who are not in the proper scientific field.
Reviewer must be professional, pleasant, helpful, empathetic, realistic, to be opened and well organized. Ethics is an issue to be respected. Avoid conflict of interests.
This are good readings about, some tips how to improve review work.
Review process from start to a final decision is treated in second article How to conduct a review!
https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/career-tips-and-advice/ten-tips-from-an-editor-on-undertaking-academic-peer-review-for-journals
https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/how-to-conduct-a-review
Excellent work and work very wrong we are able to judge easily.
Worse is to judge the work on "border". It's a exhausting and not very entertaining :-))
What Do you think as a reviewer or examiner?
From reviewer's perspective, agreed it is not an easy job as we are responsible for the outcome of a manuscript submitted for review. Agreed with other scholars' comments on good methodology to review a manuscript. From my personal experience, I'd embraced the following attributes when I review a manuscript:
Dear Han Ping Fung! When I read your criteria to the expert, I decided that you talk about Divine Creation. By analogy with Diogenes, who was looking for a real Human with a bright lantern in the daytime, and now, where to find a meticulous expert with an objective approach to the review. Sorry for my regrets.
Vladimir
As a reviewer if I care about originality of the article
And it's contributions to the science as well as it's applicability in practice
As a reviewer I evaluate keeping in mind the scientific worth and reader's focus but while examining I consider the on spot performance.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts