If you are unable to do any specifies as a reviewer for the manuscript, you have to choose between a major revision submitting one specific point, accepting the manuscript, or not accepting to review the manuscript. But building up your opinion on background or rumor or whatever type of thoughts that you are building your opinion on is not appropriate and this is not the target of the review. The target is to modify the manuscript to look better and not be rejected and show off your English language using the thesaurus of Microsoft Word. The review does not provide a single specific point. See below
"The manuscript exhibits notable deficiencies, and the overall caliber, encompassing the value of the scholarly contribution, the robustness of the methodology, the clarity of presentation, the depth of discussion, and the formulation of conclusive statements, does not meet the standard requisites for publication in a scholarly journal."
Totally agree with you Prof. Amr, it is the responsible of the editor to deny manuscripts prior to revision process. Once the paper becomes underreview, the reviewer should prepare specific revision and comment on every section. He can mention his opinion before the comments but suppose to provide them not to only commenting on the novality, language, and others. Majority of reviewers understand the criterion of revision but still less of them follow the abnormal way. I think they are still younger and start review recently, by time they can enhance their revision style
Thanks but in the sense of novelty, there is no such thing in research. If the research skewed from the objective it must had happened for a reason. As reviewer you have to get it from the authors what was the purpose and why it is skewed. This is how you can make difference and improvement to the manuscript.
- Badges
- Science topic