Reviewing, as it is nowadays, has lots of forms. But before trying to classify them there is one more form that is, I believe, obsolete. This is the presentation form at past times in which the article author has to present his work in front of a committee of other researchers and defend his findings ( sort of a VIVA). I doubt this is anymore viable nowadays!. Of course such a review style is a powerful one. Nowadays, review takes the forms of:
- Editor or one man review for some journals. He will surely not be competent to review all articles no matter how experienced he is. I think the review is based on the article suitability, style and compliance with journal/magazine line.
- Review based on abstract/extended abstract, which is acceptable in many conferences and some journals. In here, the reviewer(s) shall be some experienced in the field but may not necessarily be experienced in that particular topic of the article. His/her job is to check that the article is in line with the journal/conference line with some extra instructions as to the style/content/title/ ...etc that the author(s) need to comply with plus the provision that the full paper shall be subject to rejection if the author(s) failed to comply with their requirements. Usually, the deadline for full article submission and publication is very short which prevents genuine revision after that stage.
-Review for invited papers, especially when the journal editor invites some one known in the field to write a review article or so in his field. I doubt in this case that the article is reviewed beside style,...etc. Please correct me if that was not the case.
- Peer review for articles in journals and conferences, which necessitate that the reviewer be in the field. He may not be exactly aware of that topic. This is why some review forms ask the reviewer to rate his knowledge in the field/ topic. An experienced reviewer is better. However, not all reviewers are experienced ones. With the skyrocketing of journals and conferences, the need for more reviewers is also skyrocketing. I find that some journals ask you to name reviewers for your article (compulsory by some journals). This is to expand their database of reviewers and most probably will not be asked to review your article. Generally, for peer reviewed journals it is necessary to have well experienced reviewers in the field. Those are very busy. The initial review/ filtering by the editor in charge helps reduce the load on those. Nevertheless, this delays publication. Lower rank journals will contend with reviewers with some reputation in the field who might be recommended by others or even registered by themselves. Not sure, what process goes on after registration. I never tried it myself but I see that you can register in many journals to become a reviewer.
your question, Jayasinghe, is a good one and may open the door for more questions on review process and whether we need new models, e.g. online review by the general community who might criticize, amend, recommend, reject, accept (may be a vote),...etc a given manuscript, let us call it OpenReview. I think Researchgate, this site is after such a model in which you and may can publish data sets for review/discussion by other Researchgate users. Can this enhance good publication, speed publication and be a viable model?. In otherwords, you need to publish online at "Researchgate" or similar sites (may be journal website) ahead to publication. Can the intellectual/copyright be protected?. Questions need to be answered. Thanks @AlDmour.
I think having published in the same field in reputable journals/conferences + experience in reviewing/organizing research events over some period of time (not less than 10 years).
A Master is probably a good minimum requirement, but one should also have some experience in reviewing papers. The latter can be obtained by helping your PhD supervisor or some other collegeaue with reviewing a few papers that this person has been selected to review.
PhD AND at least one journal publication in the field with no more than two co-authors should be the minimum requirement. Anything less is amateurish and ineffective, but unfortunately that is far from what is practiced. Unfortunately these days journal paper is not a requirement for a PhD, which makes it both worthless and pointless.
Of course you should also have some experience in the area, proven by relevant publications. This up to the editor to check and judge. The editor will only find your name if you have published something similar.
When you review something for journals the editor will give you a secret grade on the review quality that impacts whether other editors will contact you or not.
You should submit your request and then the board of Editors make a decision: this is what we do in AIP. In principle, at least for us, there are no well defined minimum requirements to fulfill
Like my colleagues, I think that the best qualification is the experience.
In this sense, the usual way to become a reviewer is to publish peer reviewed papers. May be that later on, an editor who should assign reviewers to a manuscript with subject similar to the one you published may ask you to become a reviewer. Therefore, it will greatly depend on the topic you are "expert" (if it is a hot topic you will be invited with a high probability), and on the quality of the journal i which you publish your papers. But actually, there are no "standard" minimum qualifications.
A good research experience results in peer reviewed publications in various journals along with the doctoral degree will serve the purpose. But it depends on the editorial board to decide the right reveiwers and their qualification, experience etc..
What i observed is if you have interested you can register as a reviewer so that they keep on sending papers. But from your side you should have the knowledge on your topics to review those papers. So no need to worry you can register first small journals to review.. all the best
Reviewing, as it is nowadays, has lots of forms. But before trying to classify them there is one more form that is, I believe, obsolete. This is the presentation form at past times in which the article author has to present his work in front of a committee of other researchers and defend his findings ( sort of a VIVA). I doubt this is anymore viable nowadays!. Of course such a review style is a powerful one. Nowadays, review takes the forms of:
- Editor or one man review for some journals. He will surely not be competent to review all articles no matter how experienced he is. I think the review is based on the article suitability, style and compliance with journal/magazine line.
- Review based on abstract/extended abstract, which is acceptable in many conferences and some journals. In here, the reviewer(s) shall be some experienced in the field but may not necessarily be experienced in that particular topic of the article. His/her job is to check that the article is in line with the journal/conference line with some extra instructions as to the style/content/title/ ...etc that the author(s) need to comply with plus the provision that the full paper shall be subject to rejection if the author(s) failed to comply with their requirements. Usually, the deadline for full article submission and publication is very short which prevents genuine revision after that stage.
-Review for invited papers, especially when the journal editor invites some one known in the field to write a review article or so in his field. I doubt in this case that the article is reviewed beside style,...etc. Please correct me if that was not the case.
- Peer review for articles in journals and conferences, which necessitate that the reviewer be in the field. He may not be exactly aware of that topic. This is why some review forms ask the reviewer to rate his knowledge in the field/ topic. An experienced reviewer is better. However, not all reviewers are experienced ones. With the skyrocketing of journals and conferences, the need for more reviewers is also skyrocketing. I find that some journals ask you to name reviewers for your article (compulsory by some journals). This is to expand their database of reviewers and most probably will not be asked to review your article. Generally, for peer reviewed journals it is necessary to have well experienced reviewers in the field. Those are very busy. The initial review/ filtering by the editor in charge helps reduce the load on those. Nevertheless, this delays publication. Lower rank journals will contend with reviewers with some reputation in the field who might be recommended by others or even registered by themselves. Not sure, what process goes on after registration. I never tried it myself but I see that you can register in many journals to become a reviewer.
your question, Jayasinghe, is a good one and may open the door for more questions on review process and whether we need new models, e.g. online review by the general community who might criticize, amend, recommend, reject, accept (may be a vote),...etc a given manuscript, let us call it OpenReview. I think Researchgate, this site is after such a model in which you and may can publish data sets for review/discussion by other Researchgate users. Can this enhance good publication, speed publication and be a viable model?. In otherwords, you need to publish online at "Researchgate" or similar sites (may be journal website) ahead to publication. Can the intellectual/copyright be protected?. Questions need to be answered. Thanks @AlDmour.
my view on this is that research is a two way process in which a good researcher has to review other researchers work. So the qualification shouldn;t matter. However, the standard is that thos who published in peer reviewed journals/conferences can be reviewers regardless of them getting their PhDs or not.
The role of reviewer is to give an opinion of an expert on the paper. In other words the expertise in a field related to the paper is the absolute necessity. There is not a diploma of an expert on the field and there is no sens to ask for any.
In fact, to be more procise, the reviewer has to be known as an expert to the editor. And the editor must trust in her/his judgment. Thus, the correct professional relationship between the editor and reviewer is an important element of a smooth reviewing procedure. The problem is that the number of journals/papers increases and it is not easy for an editor to find a good reviewer and develop a good profesionnal relationship...
A good reviewer means good knowledge in respective subject good experience to write the paper and publish the paper and highly knowledge in their respective fields.
About the question of Seng-Kin Lao: helps to what? Suggestions given by the authors are carefully evaluated (co-authorship with the author, experience and expertise, average time lapsed to get a report, evaluation given by Editors based on the previous reviews.....) so in general, they help the editor in finding an appropriate reviewer for a given manuscript, thereby are certainly welcome.
First, a sound reviewer needs an absolute knowledge of the corresponding subject. Second, the person must have himself published papers in the related area (s) in the peer reviewed indexed journal. Third, the person must be able to have an eye over all the literature present on the subject till date.
it depends upon the journal and their norms,,, normally after Ph.D u should have 2 or more publication in that particular field of study
My view is that reviewers must be experts in the fields. This can be evident by the number of academic papers he/they published in the top 100 journals. High impact factors obtained can be used as another index. Reviewers should have broad mind and high vision as well as excellent insights. In some areas, reviewers should have the experience of doing actual works in that field, eg. in the business sector or industrial sector.
In my view, degree or number publication is not the prime factor, but the expertise in a specific area should be the factor decide whether one can review the paper or not.
In my view, the importance the experience in publishing paper or journal. You know the trick during publishing paper. Also importance the knowledge.
Definitely expertise. Obviously, it's a broad term. One has to be an established expert in the field. Whether that takes the top degree, or years of industry experience, or a successful track regarding one's own publications. Expertise is necessary. What else? I believe some visibility. How to verify someone is indeed capable in the given field if he is unknown to his peers? Conversely, if I've heard someone giving a decent talk at a conference and I've read some of his papers, which generally hold their own, I can assume he could be the right man for the job. Which is (or at least should be) somehow verified, but those two seem to be the main factors. There is perhaps a third one, that is familiarity. If I know someone well and I know he's good at what he does (teaching, publishing, getting grant money, grading papers on time etc.) then I can assume he will be able to bear the additional workload of reading through the submissions and think critically, offer potential suggestions, etc. And that's the man (or woman) I'd want to take the job. To recap: expertise and some degree of recognition in the community.
In my opinion, the requirements to become a reviewer varies from journal to journal. However, the general requirements are: (1) Educational qualification, (2) Reputation, (3) Adequate knowledge of the field, (4) Enough publications in the field, (5) Experience of reviewing articles, (5) Good reviews in the past, (6) Elapsed time for reviewing articles, and (7) Suggestion from the authors of a manuscript.
However, there is no device or clear line that can determine the quality of a reviewer. Besides, the requirements require to become a reviewer of any journal depends on the journal itself. if the quality of the journal is very high, the requirements increase.
hello dear
thanks for your email
MSc or above will be good to review and know all the techical details of the patent
thanks
ready for aby question you need to know
Editors of some journals approach you asking whether you are willing to review a particular paper.This is based on their estimation whether you are capable of reviewing the particular article based on your Pulications in Reputed Journals in that area.The Editors also will be scouting to locate Potential Reviwers by going through different Publications .
If you Review certain papers in any particular area for any particular journal to the satisfaction of the Editor for Proper Unbiased Review, you become their preferred reviewer in that Field.
P.S.
actually, expertise in required field and experience in publishing or reviewing are both important
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Telecommunications Engineering
- Antennas and Propagation