Reviewers’ comments should be constructive, honest, polite and helpful in enriching the contents and improvement of the manuscript.

I agree with you Prof. In practice reviewer’s role is very passive and needs a refresh. It can also mean looking into an option to actively engage with a randomly selected reviewer suggested/ connected by the editorial board (not proposed by the author, just for the sake of research ethics). Such an exchange can help combine, enrich perspectives for good of science and possibly regulate the bias, that most scripts that fail to hit the expertise domain of the reviewers or simply his/her point of view suffers.

Many times that depends on the number of papers the Journal receives. If a particular Journal is receiving large number of papers, even very good papers are returned back with negative comments. In case of scanty papers, editors enrich the paper by giving comments. Some times they returned back without comments and without reasonable justification. But it should not happen.

Reviewers’ comments should be constructive, honest, polite and helpful in enriching the contents and improvement of the manuscript.

Yes dear Yogesh, I fully agree with you. Reviewers’ comments should be constructive, honest, polite and helpful... Nicely said.

I agree with Yogesh and Mahfooz that reviewers’ comments should be constructive, honest, polite and helpful in enriching the contents and improvement of the manuscript.

The reviewer should be improving and enriching the paper!  If s/he does this, s/he is a truly great and charitable scientist.  We know that reviewers are not paid; and they need to be well versed in a certain field/s to review a paper and improve it.  

I sent one article to an online journal last year.  I was asked to do some minor corrections, and it's already published.  I sent another paper to another journal in Jan this year.  One of 3 reviewers rejected the paper, but I was told to do quite a lot of improvements/ corrections and sent it again.  When I called up, I was told that only 1 reviewer was completely silent/ didn't make any comments.  So I hope for good news.  

In June (recently), I sent 1 more paper.  I was asked to do some minor changes, and I was told it will be published around Nov (next month).  How time flies!  We should be positive researchers and hope to meet positive reviewers!

I´m thinking around.

- The first step when reviewing a paper is to analyse the paper for scientific method, content, reliability and conclusivness.

- In the second step the reviewer can propose some changes or improvements of presentation if necessary. I would like to call it "didactics".

- Proposals to change or improve the contents, you call it enrichement, should if ever be the last step. And this part of reviewing must be analysed very diligently. The first impulses in this direction should come from the collegues or supervisors. Tips to enrich the contents should just be hints, not definite presets, because the paper must be and stay the paper of the authors and not an elaborate of the reviewer.

So my conclusion is: be cautious and restraining.

Editors should not edit or change any comments made by reviewers. In their comments to authors, reviewers are encouraged to be honest but not offensive in their language.

There are some roles for reviewers as:

1) A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript and respect the intellectual independence of the authors. In no case is personal criticism appropriate.

2) A reviewer should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer's work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.

3) Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

4) A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists. A reviewer should call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal, and so on.

Excellent and practical guidelines (along with the two references by Roland above): http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/reviewer-guidelines

Dear Mahfouz and other friends,

The vast majority of scholarly journals implement peer reviewing, which has come under scrupulous scrutiny by different scholars. And the Internet has made this job even easier; it not only reduced the cost of peer reviewing, but it provided a large amount of flexibility, as well.

Many scholars, in turn, have adopted various forms of peer reviewing. And the majority of scholarly journals continue to use traditional methods in which a selected group of authorities, whose identity is not disclosed, provides feedback to the editor who makes a final decision, and his judgment has to be sound and educated and faultless and worthy of respect and, on top of all, trustworthy to help the submitted work(s) emerge into a real solid contribution to human knowledge at large!

It is supposed that a reviewer:

How many of the above tasks does a typical reviewer carry out today?

I think that only the 2. task.

Most of the cases the review is so fast, that only one relevant article is enough for proposing rejection of the article (lack of 1.). So, the review is just a google search to find similar articles...

I think, the reviewer has to candidly state the strengths and weaknesses of the paper concerned  and how it is likely to add to the understanding of the issues discussed in it. S/he is also supposed to suggest how the paper could be made more useful by improving its contents or why the paper needs to be rejected. The comments should be very clearly stated so that they are helpful in revising it. 

The reviewer

Should provide

Should not

http://www.the-aps.org/mm/publications/journals/reviewer-guidelines.html

Dear @Mahfuz, I have read the contribution and the attachments/links that our friend @Roland have given, and I find it quite useful. 

There are:

-Peer-reviewer responsibilities toward authors,

-Peer-reviewer responsibilities toward editors and

-Peer-reviewer responsibilities toward readers! 

I think that the role of reviewer is not only reviewing an article, but also enriching its contents, yes! "Providing written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, together with the documented basis for the reviewer’s opinion"! The link is repeated for the reason of quoting!

http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-3-reviewer-roles-and-responsibilities/

Reviewers should be critical to the point that they can enhance paper quality. Constructive comments must be there as well as the negative one. Courtesies unnecessary in scientific criticism.

Thank you, Prof. Mahfuz. I believe that the role of a peer reviewer goes beyond highlighting any possible weakness in the reviewed manuscript. The reviewer should seek how to prompt authors to improve the quality of their manuscript. In addition to checking its originality, novelty and scientific quality regarding significance, design, methodology, outcomes, etc., reviewers should highlight the positive attributes that would certainly guide editors to take the best decisions. 

Kind regards,

Rashad

Dear Rashad,

I believe the decision of peer reviewer should be clear as to reject or accept with major or minor rectification. I know some reviewers don't provide decision and make their input vague so the editors board have to make a decision.

A sound review requires the reviewer to provide constructive feedback, and that includes highlighting both strengths and areas of suggested improvement, providing the right guidance with respect to content and form, in terms of depth, clarity, cohesion, and overall impact.

It also calls for sound habits of mind, openness to contrary perspectives, and the ability to shift one's own perspective, if required.

I agree with YOGESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, and should a confirmation on the ethics of scientific research

I think that the reviewer's work requires knowledge of the topic, hearth (love for research), experience, capability of analysis and method. If all these properties are used for a review a good article can only be improved by the review itself.

In my opinion the main role of the reviewer is to ensure that the manuscript that has been submitted for publication has the sufficient quality from the scientific, technical, economic political or social point of view to be published in a given journal. In other words:

1- The manuscript provides new ideas, methodologies, models, innovations, inventions, programs, projects, systems, among others that could have a future impact on the field itself or in the solution of practical problems that are waiting for an adequate solution.

2- The manuscript is well written, this means the ideas, suggestions, conclusions, proposals, etc., Included in the text are clear, precises in a rigorous sequence and without any errors or mistakes. All mathematical formulas should be well written and the explanation of where these mathematical formulas come from and why should be used must be given in the clearest manner. A few years ago I had to review a manuscript prepare by an economist on a mathematical model that he is suggesting to apply in order to explain certain economic development. The paper was full of mathematical formulas, several of them very complex for normal professionals working outside the mathematical science, that at a first glance appears to be well connected in the system proposed. Looking very carefully these sets of formulas I found that some of them were not only conceptually wrong, but for their use of the system the outcome of them should be modified without any given reason in order to be considered as an input of the next one.

3- If the content of the manuscript is mainly theoretical, then the reviewer should be sure that the ideas, methodology, suggestions, etc., included in the text will be useful for the specific scientific field associated with the manuscript and will improve the theory associated to this specific field of science in the short or long term.

4- Reviewer should not limit his /her work to accept or reject a manuscript. He /she should give all necessary elements to the editor that supports all of his/her recommendations. We must be aware that a reviewer could understand wrongly any part of a manuscript and for this reason he/she should explain very carefully the arguments used to reject or suggest a change in any paragraphs or group of paragraphs or to change certain ideas, suggestions, recommendations or conclusions included in the manuscript. The author has the right to receive very solid arguments supporting each of the recommendations presented by the reviewer.

5- The reviewer should made an impartial and objective evaluation of the manuscript, even if he/she disagree with some of the ideas or suggestions included in it unless he/she can give solid scientific arguments in favor of his/her position.

I completely agree with YOGESH!

The reviewer should evaluate  the manuscript according to guidelines of the journal and publisher .

The reviewer  comments should be constructive, honest, polite   upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations;

The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study;

The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct;

The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript;

I think a reviewer has to be a person of considerable knowledge who is ethical and of good judgement, unbiased (like the blind folded statue of justice ) that works passionately to promote knowledge and research.

Reviewing a scientific work for consideration of publication is not to find only weakly and loosely structured points and prepare cases  to throw out a submitted article, in which case the reviewer acts as a business lawyer who always prepares cases to win for commission, no matter what the case is, but to find points and places where an amendment/modification can be made to produce a strong paper for re- submission.

Above all he/she has to be humble, friendly and respectful of colleague scientists of considerable knowledge and experience.

In my point of view, a reviewer has to be the person who possesses considerable knowledge and expertise in the journal he/she is reviewing. A reviewer's comments should be conducted in an encouraging and positive way although some negative comments might also involved.

In my humble opinion, comments from a good reviewer should be constructive, informative, and helpful in an effort of enriching and improving the contents of the manuscript submitted. The reviewer should provide appropriate suggestions and comments on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript with great honesty and unbiased objectivity in an attempt to further enriching the manuscript while acting as a written scientific communication with the corresponding authors at the same time. He/she should highlight and address the points to which a proper amendment should be made to the corresponding authors in order to brush up the paper for re- submission.

Nevertheless, the most significant character upon all is that a reviewer has to act modestly, courteously, and respectfully towards the colleague scientists of considerable knowledge and experience. Despite acting as a reviewer role, he/she must be acting as a colleague or friend in scientific field.

Dear Dejenie,

Nicely said."Reviewing a scientific work for consideration of publication is not to find only weakly and loosely structured points and prepare cases  to throw out a submitted article, in which case the reviewer acts as a business lawyer who always prepares cases to win for commission, no matter what the case is, but to find points and places where an amendment/modification can be made to produce a strong paper for re- submission". Then, the reviewer should find points where an amendment can be made to produce a strong paper for re- submission, which means that one of the reviewer`s roles is to enrich the paper.

Dear Mahfuz Judeh,

Your statement "to enrich the paper" is a great role of reviewer.

Dear Fikrat,

Thank you. This is really what I believe. The reviewer should try to improve the paper contents if s/he has any added value ideas or thoughts.

The reviewer`s responsibility is known to authors, editors, and to the reviewers themselves. Articles may range in length from 4 pages to 20 or 30 or even more than 30 pages of depending on the topic and journal.

"In an ideal world, editors obtain reviews from two to three thoughtful, objective people who have no conflicts of interest with the authors or their research. In reality, editors may not have sufficient information to find the ideal reviewers, or the ideal reviewers may decline to do a review. In the real world, therefore, some reviewers may not be as objective, expert, or constructive as they should be. In my experience, it is rare that all reviews for one manuscript are problematic".

For more information you may have a look on the following link:

http://chronicle.com/article/Confessions-of-a-Journal/127221/

Long time back when I started sending papers to journals one of my paper got rejected. However, the reviewers report contained a detailed discussion. From that review I could get new ideas and could improve that paper that was finally published. Also I could extend that work from which I got two more publications to my credit.In another occasion the reviewer sent me two papers through the editor of the journal that helped me a lot.

I think this should be spirit of reviewing.

Dear Mahfuz,

Well said.

Dear Anup,

interesting story. But I´ve regognized, that the reviewers gave tips and hints to you, they did not improve your paper directly, they just showed possibilities.

Dear Anup,

The role of the reviewer was constructive and positive. That is really what the reviewer should do.

My experience is that many reviewers will attack the submitted article based on three things: 1. methods, 2. literature review, and 3. theory. If a paper is strong in these three areas reviewers will sometimes attack the writing and organization of the paper. Although it is ideal that reviewers should be positive, in most cases, they think their job is to attack the paper and find ways to reject the submittal and not accept it for publication.

However, fair (but negative and accurate) criticisms do help the paper along the way and make it highly likely to be published in the next journal where the same article is submitted elsewhere.

My personal experience is that when a good quality journal has thoroughly rejected one of my articles that same article gets published the very next submittal--most of the time with only one or two revisions. I don't mind honest accurate negative feedback.

Reviewer's comments should be honest, helpful to enrich the quality of  manuscript and enhance of the researcher for future research.

Thanks to Prof. Mahfuz Judeh for interesting question. And also very Interesting respondents answers please.

A reviewer's comments must help the author rethink his opinions where necessary, construct his arguments in a manner to either support or negate the topic under discussion and help in enhancing the knowledge in the field of specialization of the journal.

I have reservations about expecting a reviewer to enrich the contents on two accounts: one, time that he can actually devote; two, his own opinions on the subject that may negatively bias the appreciation of originality of the author under review.

Have a great day.

I fully agree with Kamal Eddin Bani-Hani that we should not expect that the reviewer should re-write the manuscript. What should happen is that he should read the paper carefully and should indicate any mistake or discrepancy present in the paper. As a reviewer I have found that some of the submitted papers are very poorly written. The author should remember that the readers of the paper have not worked on the problem. He/she therefore should write the paper in a lucid manner with some more detail explanation such that it becomes readable. Some time one iteration is necessary for this purpose. However, after rewriting the readability is expected to be improved and the paper has more chance to be accepted.

I would like to raise a point not treated so far. Have you ever had any experience with reviewers who look at the author's name instead of the text of a manuscript? And with rewievers asking to cite their papers? And with those, who, based on the criticisms, demonstrate that they have not carefully read your script? And finally, there's never happened you to wait more than six months for a review? In conclusion: you have never experienced the existence of "bad reviewers"?

Dear Ierardi,

I completely agree with you. What you mentioned are some of the examples of what authors suffer or experience from reviewers. It happened to me and to many of my colleagues that the reviewer asks to cite her/his paper. 

Dear Lerardi, 

It happens sometimes. However,  the editorial board of the journal ask to cite names already have their published paper in the same journal. They do that because of increasing impact factors score. I personally think that both request is not ethical but business wise. 

The reviewer should provide constructive comments  to prompt authors to improve the quality of their manuscript. They need to check for the article's  originality, novelty and quality regarding significance, design, methodology, outcomes, etc.. Reviewers need to also provide clear guidance to the editor on the potential suitability of the paper for publication.

Dear Umesh,

The reviewer should provide constructive comments to prompt authors to improve the quality of their manuscript. I agree with this statement, and I believe, to improve the quality of the article is one of the roles of the reviewer.

I have been following this interesting question for days, and there seems to be almost a consensus that there are some bad reviewers. I think that journals and conferences are having a hard time finding enough reviewers (especially good ones) because the work is voluntary and time consuming. So I am not sure what the editors should do with the bad reviewers; they can try harder to actively recruit new reviewers to replace the bad ones. One solution that comes to mind is rewarding the good reviewers. If a person is reading the manuscripts well, and making accurate observations and helpful suggestions each time, the editors can reward that reviewer with a small gift voucher, or by promotion to assistant or associate editor, or simply with an official thank-you letter (each year). 

Dear Emre,

I support your solution in rewarding the good reviewers. University journals in Jordan pay rewards for reviewer of the manuscripts sent to her/him for review process.. 

Dear Mahfuz,

I didn´t know this conducts in your country.

Dear Hanno,

University journal pays a nominal amount of money as a reward for the efforts exerted by the reviewer. I believe this is fair, and it can make the reviewing process of better quality. The reviewing process is time consuming, so it is an incentive for the reviewer to work hard.

Dear Mahfuz,

thanks for your answer. I just spended 4 days for a review without any salary and understand totally, what you tell me.

Dear all,

I agree with most of the opinions about the reviewers. The theory is always good but in practice the reality will dictate his own rules. Let us consider some situation which is not so rare in mathematics. To review some papers an expert needs months of complete dedication to clarify if everything is fine or not in a paper under the review. The question is who can ask an expert to put aside his/her research and dedicate several months of his/her valuable time to clarify if a result of another author is OK or not. Putting aside exceptional cases everything will be reduced to the trust.

Dear Kazaros,

You statement "To review some papers an expert needs months of complete dedication to clarify if everything is fine or not in a paper under the review" is well said. Reviewing a paper is very time consuming and takes a lot of effort.

The process of  review depends on the idea that, because much of academic inquiry is specialized with similar expertise are often the best judges of the quality of work. Who else but a researcher active in the field could evaluate the originality, methodology, and contributions of other investigators? Also, good review improves the quality of the grant application or paper. Review of articles takes place after the manuscript is submitted to a publication. An editor may send the paper for review by members of the journal's advisory board or to a few external reviewers who have expertise in the subject of the article. Although the author's identity usually is known to the reviewer, the reviewer's identity is not known to the author. Reviewers are expected to provide the editor with a document that states the problem of the research, puts the research into perspective, notes whether appropriate credit has been given to the field, comments on the originality of the work, describes whether the research design is adequate for the conclusions written, and says whether the grammar is correct and the writing style understandable. Each reviewer sends comments back to the editor, who considers them and makes a determination as to whether the paper should be accepted as is, accepted with revisions, or rejected.

http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_authorship/foundation/#5_A

When research results are published, there are mainly two points in time that are very important. The first important time point is receipt of a manuscript at a journal’s editorial office. In published journal articles, information such as the date on which a manuscript was received by the editors is often included..The second important time point is the date of publication: How long does it take for a manuscript to be reviewed, accepted for publication by the editors, and, finally, published?

For more statistics and details, you may look at the following link:

http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/icons/TimePeerReview5.pdf

The reviewer give academy duty

the reviewer take:

* Updated with latest development

* Help with own research or new idea

* Career development

* Awareness of new research before their peers

* Builds association with journals and editors

@ Gamal, Very interesting points to to new reviewers...

Notes reviewers must be clear and relevant scientific objectives sings Find information helps the researcher to understand the things that have not taken out. And that the notes taken by the researcher into consideration.

the reviewer must understand if the article may be of interest for the journal and then help authors in the publication

Publications are the means of transmitting knowledge to the people. A Reviewer should see and ensure that worthy information/knowledge should reach the audience accurately. They should act in the interest of erudite society at large without any prejudice.

You SHOULD consider publishing your research if you have information that advances the understanding in a specific research field.

This could take the form of:

1. Presenting new, original results or methods

2. Rationalizing, refining, or reinterpreting published results

3. Reviewing or summarizing a particular subject or field

You SHOULD NOT consider publishing yet if:

Your report lacks scientific interest or does not substantially advance the field

The work is outdated

You would be duplicating previously published work

Your conclusions are incorrect/not acceptable

I still believe that the role of the journal reviewer is to build, to criticize and construct.  Unless the article to be reviewed is below the required quality , the reviewer`s role is to help young people and benefit them.

The role of the reviewer of journal Is to review articles and give positive and negative comments.

Dear Dr. Mahfuz ,

First I believe that review should be voluntary work (even though it dispenses valuable hours). Done to enhance the curriculum of the reviewer. After all, when a researcher is accepted for such is implied that he/she published good Works and has a lot of knowledge in the area.

The role of the reviewer is to make constructive and impartial critical to maintain the quality of the journal reviews.

Best Regards,

Vanessa

I am fortunate to become an reviewer for few IEEE, Elsevier, and Springer journals just after my MS (4 months back). Though I'm not that experienced in this work, I am strictly following these practices.

1. Fair, honest, polite and unbiased feedback to both the authors and associate editor

2. Before reviewing the paper, go through the background and current state of art thoroughly

3. Stick to the deadline (That's very very important)

4. Your decision or feedback should help improving both the technical and grammatical aspects of manuscript as well as point out the shortcomings, which could be rectified/improved later

Reviewers have a tremendous impact on overall journal quality. At first, reviewers have the difficult task of evaluating manuscripts and ensuring that they are technically, mathematically, scientifically, and even grammatically sound. But equally important is the role that reviewers play as sparring partners. Reviewers are themselves experts in the field, actively researching and writing on similar topics, so the decision to review is mostly determined by whether the subject matter of the paper fits into reviewer's own research. A Reviewer helps improve the overall quality of scientific publications, and can sometimes even provide new information and insights.

Yes ,dear Yogesh. I agree with you that reviewers have a tremendous impact on overall journal quality. Thus, selection of reviewers must be done carefully in a professional way.

I do not think that it is just for some negative comments. Sometimes, the comments seems to be negative used to strike on our minds that leads to enhance the quality of research. Also, sometimes we are forced to leave some area of research which may have potential to lead useful results.

To provide an unbiased opinion and appropriate comments that will improve the scientific substance in the script and should not use language as the only criteria  to judge the significance of research and information 

Usually comments of the reviewer are for the improvement of the paper.

Role of reviewers:

• make suggestions as to how the author can improve clarity, succinctness, and the overall quality of presentation.
• Confirm whether they feel the subject of the paper is sufficiently interesting to justify its length; if you recommend shortening, it is useful to the author(s) if you can indicate specific areas where they think that shortening is required.
• correct the English where the technical meaning is unclear.

A reviewer should also recognize good side of the manuscript, point out any kind of deficiencies (if any) constructively and indicate the required improvements. Reviewers have the responsibility to identify strengths and provide constructive comments to help the author resolve weaknesses in the work. Reviewer should not consider the review assignment as an opportunity to demonstrate his/her own intellectual proficiency by way of undesirable fault finding..

Checklist for reviewers (From Elsevier)

• Summarize the article in a short paragraph. This shows the editor you have read and understood the research.
• Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, whether it has a sufficient impact and adds to the knowledge base.
• Point out any journal-specific points – does it adhere to the journal’s standards?
• If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, raise your suspicions with the editor, providing as much detail as possible. Visit Elsevier’s Ethics site or the COPE Guidelines for more information.
• Give specific comments and suggestions, including about layout and format, Title, Abstract, Introduction, Graphical Abstracts and/or Highlights, Method, statistical errors, Results, Conclusion/Discussion, language and References.

http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/how-to-conduct-a-review

We should take reviewers comments positively. Its a matter of quality.

The role of a reviewer is to provide a critical, thorough and encouraging review, wherever possible.

The role of a reviewer is to assess originality and novelty of the work presented in the paper. Reviewers should suggest corrections/revisions (if any) politely to improve the manuscript.

I have never given negative comments. Every work is a hard work. Your task is to support an author and to give him a piece of advice how to write the best paper.

Reviewer -if it is possible- may give a comment that reinforce and strengthen the work instead of rejection it, it would be more better.

I think that a reviewer is sort of a coach or chaperone who is in charge of a paper and its authors.

What is good must be acknowledged (but seldomly is), what can be made better must be mentioned and said. When items are not good advice must be given.

In my line of work (social sciences/Law) often it is about headlines, structures of the paper the way citations are made, the litereature list and ommission or inconsistencies...

Interesting!

Obviously not. No reviewer does that. But some editors who have to reject an article on the first look generally give only negative reviews which indicates their bias towards the article. To support their view, they bluntly criticize the article as if it doesn't have any merits and its existence is cursed. Reading those comments, it seems, why in the world did the authors even think of conducting a study. Such comments seriously question your credibility as a researcher and put questions on your academic skills. If you will believe in those comments, you would never even think of reading a research, doing a study would even become a far seeming goal. So academicians do actually give only fair comments, and in my experience, its only editors who defend their rejection by providing only criticism to the research. It looks reviewers are more qualified to give comments than editors.