As a reviewer of some conferences and journals, I am asking the other reviewers:
What is the main task of a good reviewer?
Or maybe help the new researchers to learn the right research methodology? Helping other strong researchers to modify their works and resolve their lacks?
Is it necessary to read some related works in a research area before reviewing a paper at all?
Is it necessary to review all papers even if we know nothing about that research area? Can we reject those papers easily?
With regards to humanity and real researchers and good reviewers
Sincerely
Reviewers:
- uphold the integrity of the journal by identifying invalid research, and helping to maintain the quality of the journal.
- establish relationships with colleagues and their journals, and increase their opportunities to join an Editorial Board.
- can prevent ethical breaches by identifying plagiarism and other problems by dint of their familiarity with the subject area.
Help to improve the MS unless it is really bad. Editors should select only those reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. However, it is not so easy as said.
Every review is factually only a reader response. Given the professional judgement structure of the academic and journalistic system, the main question is, if the contribution fits into the scientific and ideological framework of the respective publication organ. To sum it up, a good, fair and constructive reader response (formalized and/or informal) is the maximum you can expect from review expertise. The normal practice is, of course, characterized by much lower journalistic standards of scientific production, i.e. serialized thinking and feedback, with high and perfected redundancy.
I agree with your concerns. I found the source below in Human Resource Development Review is very helpful as it discusses the strategies to become a good reviewer:
Wang, J. (2018). Making a Difference Through Quality Manuscript Review.
- Providing written feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, together with the basis for the reviewer’s opinion
- Indicating whether the writing is clear and rating the work’s composition, scientific originality, and interest to the journal’s readers
- Avoiding personal comments or criticism.
Reviewers usually try to improve the manuscript and try to correct errors, if any though there are some exceptions when they adopt delaying tactics or rejection or unnecessary criticism due to personal factors.
if he/she isn't knowledgeable in the manuscript's field; then he should reject to do a judgement.
Reviewers:
- uphold the integrity of the journal by identifying invalid research, and helping to maintain the quality of the journal.
- establish relationships with colleagues and their journals, and increase their opportunities to join an Editorial Board.
- can prevent ethical breaches by identifying plagiarism and other problems by dint of their familiarity with the subject area.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers