Some journals require researchers to suggest reviewers for their paper. What do you think of suggesting reviewers in submission? Do you think it will involve friends? How can we honestly and fairly evaluate our reviewers?
Anyway, you don't need to know experts personally: you are suggesting referees, not forcing them on the editor , and whether or not you actually know them should be irrelevant .
Anyway, you don't need to know experts personally: you are suggesting referees, not forcing them on the editor , and whether or not you actually know them should be irrelevant .
I dont think so friendship would work and majority journals have electronic automaric option to be rewiever along with author. I had recent exprerience i review a study for a journal and at the same time there were 2 manuscripts of mine underreview, rhe journal has moderatly high impact, rejected my 2 pieces. I am still reviwer for them. I rhink they do the things seperatly. Only the Editor in Chief has potantial take sides danger. In my field , generally speaking things are on going professionally rather than friendly.
Yes suggesting the reviewers of the name does not mean that the article should
be sent to that particular fellow . But to find out the specific line of reviewing.
Most journals determine reviewers, although the journal asks authors to suggest them
Some journals do ask for a list of suggested reviewers but I don’t think they actually use it. I wonder if this question is asked by journals so that they have a list of who NOT to send your journal to review. I personally don’t like suggesting reviewers and prefer the anonymity of the double blind peer review.
In my opinion, the journals require you to recommend one or two experts to review, this does not mean that editors will choose them to review your article. The purpose of the Journal's editoral board wants to: be 1] Select the best reviewer as possible for your article, 2] Increase the source of reviewers for their journal in future.
I agree with Emre and Navitha that the suggested referee's names are not used most of the time except in cases where all available reviewers' list is exhausted. In addition, they sometimes ask you to suggest opposing reviewer's names. In that case, I am not sure if they really disregard them or use them in the review process.
I think suggesting the opposing reviewer (whom you think there could be a conflict of interest) is much more important.
For our magazine & related to our liking reading , one would like to review the article so that we may also have an advantage of receiving the notes or comments on our review . Which may also help us to understand the expression of our views of our guideline.
This is my personal opinion
I agree with M. Awad that the suggested referee's names are not used most of the time. But when , they sometimes ask you to suggest reviewers's names and opposing reviewer's names, they generally don't send the manuscripts to them. I think the reviwers should to be anonymous but hope that the jounals can send the manuscripts according to the field of expertise of the reviwers.
The journals I have submitted articles to only ask if you want to provide such names. And i have never suggested names because i know that ofcourse my articles would not be sent to them. However i think the reasons for asking for such information is to make sure your aricles do not get to the your friends.
@Yu-Da Lin, I agree with the above discussions so far about suggesting reviewers in submissions. This is needed for future reviews especially when their list of reviewers are exhausted. It does not mean that friends you suggest will review your work knowingly. During reviews, names of authors are not included so you do not actually know those you review their papers or those who review your papers. Most likely, reviewers are selected based on their areas of specialization. It has to do with one's subject area mostly.
However, Journals may require researchers to suggest reviewers in submissions so as to be guided on how or who to send your papers to. My take though...
Hi;
First; the journal wants to extend its network of reviewers and has a large database.
Second, the author wants to be sure when suggesting a name of one or more reviewers, that his/her paper will be reviewed by recognized peers in similar fields
Third, in some non-ethical cases, the conflict of interest can influence the decision of acceptation to review the paper without considering such condition.
Good question.
Dear Wassim J. ALOULOU , Millie Nne Horsfall , Reuben Tamakloe , Hanane Teffahi , Rohit Manilal Parikh , Maham Muzamil , Marwah Firas Abdullah Al-Rawe , Mohamad-Hani Temsah ,
Thank you for your careful and helpful explanation of suggesting reviewers in submission. Thank you all for making this discussion so interesting and informative.
Best regards,
Yu-Da
For me this is real problem. Every time I think hard, who I will offer. Friends and acquaintances - sorry, they are so busy, and strangers - embarrassing ... In my opinion, this is a test about knowledge of the list of the leading researchers in own field ...
Some journals ask for suggested referees up front. So long as you choose the names of people who will be objective it is okay. This could include colleagues or someone who is a tough critique.
Good question. Reviewers are of great help in evaluating research for publishing or improvement, however ,some do not give a precise opinion about the work that their decision becomes biased. Well, suggesting a reviewer is helpful, as it may improve your relationship with your colleagues, allow you to know more scientists and researchers in the field. however,I think it should not be obligatory to chose reviewers, and leave the choice to the authors.
No es conveniente sugerir revisores pues se presta a favoritismo. Ideal es que la revisión y revisores sean anónimos o con procedimiento doble ciego
Sometime, editor does not have much knowledge to whom to send the article. If it is sent to a reviewer our of area, that gives very idiotic comments, it makes the author mad. That is why people suggest reviewers, but most of people suggest friends, many times friends are competitive and and likely to reject the paper. In my opinion, they need to come up with some computer-based reviewer pick system. The existing system is 100% biased and wrong.
If suggested things are reliable do according to the need of journal if you feel not reliable then you do what exactly article or paper needs. If you prepare an article with heartily then your inner consciousness suggests you what that needs.
I think this is one of the worst ideas ever discussed at the RG. I say this as a consultant who has worked for about 25 years in Russian and International journals as (“black referee”), i.e, as Reviewer - unknown to the authors of the article and thus not experiencing any pressure from their side. Only such a reviewer can give an “objective assessment of the work.” It is not the case: “You give me - I give you.” I am surprised by the huge number of RG members who support the idea of the friendly disposed referees.
Once talking about Country, countryman gives great bias towards paper from its own countryman or religion like wise. e.g., If paper comes from Iran, and the Israeli scientist reviews it or vice versa, God knows what you will expect. In brief, the current reviewing system is biased and unfair and needs attention. Also I support Chandra that we do not get any money for reviewing papers, I have never seen money.
Dear Leonid V Vladimirov ,
I don't understand what you mean. Could you specify why you think so about " this is one of the worst ideas ever discussed at the RG. "? I am asking everyone's opinion on the suggesting reviewers. Whether this will involve friends, is not encouraging everyone to choose refer friends to get the most benefit.
Yu-Da
Buenas noches Colega, en una revisión jamás quiero que este un amigo. Aunque mi amigo sea muy honesto y exigente, todos pensaran que actuó a mi favor. Bueno, si fuera yo el revisor de él quizás actué a su favor, con toda honestidad!!!. Por lo que yo no reviso sus trabajos o presentaciones ni el revisa los míos, solo seguimos amigos y evitamos problemas que algo importante, para un buen amigo!!! . Cordialmente. Rodolfo Vega Candelario.
Suggesting reviewers in submission or suggest opposing reviewer's names. However, the quality of the manuscript decides to get accept or reject.
The suggested reviewers are a "good source" for Editors when there is a lack of reviewers, as many researchers do not accept invitation for the review process.
Also, journals have "rules" who can be suggested as a reviewer.
I hope that researchers follow those "rules".
Suggestion of reviewer is not really compulsary as the editorial board of any journal will have their own set of reviewers. Moreover they may not pay heed to our suggestions most of the time.
Agreed with Dr. Subhash, there must be computer-based reviewer system as existing system is biased
It is a baaaaad idea , what is the point , nepotism in paper publication too !!!
Dear Srete Nikolovski , Aparna Sathya Murthy ,
Thank you reply to this discussion.
I think that as a result of the above discussion, the suggesting reviewers in submission may be to construct a review list to facilitate editors to find suitable reviewers for other papers, and our suggested reviewers will not be adopted at present.
Best regards,
Yu-Da
Yes, I think you are correct, Yu-Da Lin. Some journals do this, but ethical journals do not actually ask the scholars you suggested to review your paper. They use this as a technique of assembling a database of people with various expertise areas, so they can be asked to perform reviews in the future.
I think it is an unnecessary routine that most journal adopt. In most cases, the reviewers suggested are not contacted for the manuscript
True, some journals require researchers to suggest reviewers for their paper. The names thus suggested generally include those of known colleagues. It is also true that various journals hardly consider these submissions. Nevertheless, the submissions can be fairly evaluated by journals own panel of reviewers.
Yes, I agree with Yu-Da Lin and Michael W. Marek
It is not desirable to invite reviewers names from author(s).
It is more appropriate to have independent peers from journals panel itself for fair assessment of work (s).
Estoy seguro que es muy importante que participen revisores y árbitros,s erí más convincente!!!, -es mi opinión o mi seguridad en el tema!!!. estarían más conforme los autores. Cordialmente y respetuosamente. Rodolfo Vega Candelario.
I am sure that you are very important that the inspectors and referees participate, you would be more convincing!!!, - it is my opinion or my certainty in the theme!!!. They would be further in accordance with the authors. Cordially and respectfully. Rodolfo Vega Candelario
A big dilemma between favoritism of some authors and their papers vs. Building a database. This is the real issue.
It depends completely on Editor whether he/she will follow or not your list for referee. Nowadays if you just search internet, Google, research gate etc you will get all good workers on a particular subject, group or topic, So whether a researcher is giving list or not nothing matters. But one Point I want to mention that who will NOT be be referee a researcher should write this thing as there may be a personal enemity with a particular person.
Es una absoluta verdad lo que dice Wassim J. ALOULOU, el que paga es el autor en todos los casos, Es un dilema de favoritismo y problemas muy triste después de tantos sacrificios del autor. Todo lo se habla después de ésto es algo elucubrativo y sin final. Todo se convierte en un verdadero dilema de opiniones pero la realidad es lo que dice el colega 1 hora antes Wassim J. ALOULOU , Respetuosamente y cordialmente Rodolfo Vega Candelario.
It is an absolute truth that says Wassim J. ALOULOU, the one that pays is the author in all cases, Is a dilemma of favoritism and very sad problems after the author's so many sacrifices. Everything I know it talk after this elocurativo is something and without end. Everything becomes a true dilemma of opinions but reality is that says the colleague 1 hour before Wassim J. ALOULOU, Respetuosamente and cordially Rodolfo Vega Candelario.
at our end we have to provide the reviwers . And its entirely the choice of editors to send to those reviewers. However, there should not be our influence on reviewers comments or decision in order to be an ethical researcher.
Muchas Gracias por compartir sus conocimientos conmigo. Es un placer. Gracias a usted. Respetuosamente y cordialmente. Rodolfo Vega Candelario,
Estoy seguro que esté tema es largo y muy difícil. En muchas revistas vemos editores jefes de la revista como primeros autores. siempre miran el nombre del autor y según quién sea así actúan. Bueno es un Dilema sin fin!!!. Hemos conversado mucho sobre este enigma muy difícil de solucionar. El investigador es ético y siempre desea que el revisor lo sea así como el editor y el arbitro. Creo que no todas las veces se cumple con lo ético y responsable. Qué piensan?.
Thank you very much for sharing his knowledge with me. It is a pleasure. Thanks to you. Respectfully and cordially. Rodolfo Vega Candelario,
I am sure that theme be you are long and very difficult. The chief editors of the magazine like first authors see always in many magazines they watch the author's name and according to who be that way they act . An endless Dilemma is good!!!. Have chatted a great deal on this very difficult enigma to solve. The investigator is ethical and always desires that the inspector be to it as well as the editor and the referee. I believe that not all of times are obeyed with the ethical and responsible. What do they consider?.
they understand their work very well and know experts in their fields not their friends they are professionals
Muy bello todo!!!. !... es vivir en paz, amor y armonía. Muchas Gracias por sus enseñanzas a todos. Respetuosamente y cordialmente. Rodolfo Vega Candelario.
Very beautiful whole!!!.... is to live in peace, love and harmony. Thank you very much for his teachings to all. Respectfully and cordially. Rodolfo Vega Candelario
Dear the best thing is for the editor to select reviewers by himself.
Absolutely undesirable. Let the editor select neutral reviewers from journals' panel.
I will call this practice good. As per requirement, an author suggests experts and add to the reviewers' list of a journal. The editor has the choice to send papers to the suggested one are pick someone from the list already exists. It is also possible to pick one reviewer from the suggested one and one from the existence list.
Sería maravilloso. Respetuosamente. Rodolfo
You would be marvellous . Respectfully. Rodolfo
Reviewers are an important components of research because they think in a integrated way which is right according to the situations
Se ría ideal y estarías más contentos. Pero todos los supervisores están de acuerdo unos con otros, en muchas revistas. Le busca mucha forma y no se mira lo más importante el contenido!!!. Respetuosamente. Rodolfo Vega Candelario.
Serialize ideal and you would be further content. But all supervisors agree some with other ones, in many magazines. You look for a lot of form and what's most important does not look at his contents!!!. Respectfully. Rodolfo Vega Candelario.
I am not agree with this process. Let the editor select neutral reviewers from reviewer's panel.
Dear Professor
Actually Editor selects the independent suitable reviewers for the manuscripts. Mostly not from the submitted reviewer lists. This is the process of SCI journals ......
Es verdad que los revisores no deben estarse seleccionando porque al fin va a ser un fracaso. Va ser peor la cura que la enfermedad, en muchas revistas. Cordialmente. Rodolfo vega candelario.
It is true that inspectors must not be themselves selecting because at last you are going to be a failure. The cure goes being worse than the disease, in many magazines. Cordially. Rodolfo Vega Candelario.
Dear All
It is a good idea and a good help from researchers to journals.
I think, journals require researchers to suggest reviewers not for their own paper/papers , but for collecting a large reviewers database for all other papers.
Thanks & regards
I only observe like cardiologist to learn of yours. It is an exciting, very interesting theme. Thanks to you. Rodolfo
Editors should select an independent reviewer panel from same field. And reviewers should give some constructive criticism for the betterment of the manuscript.
Todo eso se ha convertido en un relajo muy pero muy difícil de arreglar. hay editores que están ahí y no son los expertos que pensamos en la materia!!!... Otros editores que son maléficos, desgraciadamente. Otros que están para que tú no publiques de ninguna forma y complacen a otros con trabajos basura o chatarra. Es un mundo de lobos y como dice la Santa Biblia: para vivir entre lobo hay que ser astuto como serpiente y manso como paloma!!. Ahora, hasta cuando va a ser este desastre porque es progresivo, es como un cáncer que nos lastima tanto hasta quitarnos la vida. Al final el honesto que se sacrifica es dañado repetitivamente y dolorosamente. No es en todas las revistas, aclaro, pero sí en la mayoría. Respetuosamente y cordialmente. Rodolfo vega Candelario.
Everything that has become a disorder very but very difficult there are editors that are there and are not the experts that thought about the matter to compromise!!!... Another editors that are maleficent, unfortunately. Other ones that are in order that you not publish in no way and trash or scrap metal please to other ones with works. A world comes from wolves and as the Holy Bible says : It is necessary to be cunning like snake in order to live between wolf and tame I eat dove!!. Now, until you are going to be this disaster because you are progressive, you are like a cancer that hurts us so much even to remove us the life. At the end the honest that sacrifices is damaged repetitively and painfully. You are not in all the magazines, I clarify, but yes in the majority. Respectfully and cordially. Rodolfo Vega Candelario.
Reviewers should be selected by editor rather than list of known colleagues by author.
LOS REVISORES DEBEN TENER CONCIENCIA DE LOS SACRIFICIOS QUE SE SUFRE UN AUTOR Y NADA MÁS, ES INCREÍBLE COMO EMPEORAMOS CADA VEZ MÁS EN ESTA SITUACIÓN. RESPETUOSAMENTE. RODOLFO
INSPECTORS MUST BE CONSCIOUS OF THE SACRIFICES THAT IS SUFFERED AN AUTHOR And NOTHING Further, YOU ARE incredible AS More IN THIS situation AGGRAVATED EACH TIME. RESPECTFULLY. RODOLFO
The reviewers suggested bu thors are hardly used. No point in submitting the same.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking