When we heard name of some journals maybe in my mind before reading the article of that journal we accept it. Absolutely the reviewers of that journal cause this subject in my mind. Which parameter of that reviewers make it.
Hi, Vahid,
In my discipline, reviewers are not compensated, so the first criterion for being a reviewer is the willingness to do it. Becoming a conference reviewer is usually relatively easy, in my experience. I have rarely been asked for a vita, but I have been asked if I have presented in earlier years at the conference.
Journals can be more discerning. I have often been asked for a copy of my vita. My impression is that editors, when selecting reviewers, want to see that the applicant is an active researcher with current publications and a history of reviewing for other journals.
Like so many things in academe, reviewing is a self-validating effort. One becomes a reviewer by reviewing. Quality reviews build one's reputation in this area as in others, and leads to more opportunities to review.
Hi Vahid,
Your question has two sides in fact. one is that what are the parameters that a journal has to accept papers, so reviewers have to obey the rules of the journal. most reviewers know well these rules. another aspect of your question is that what is important for a journal to publish a paper, and this item depends on many parameters, such as IF of journal, rank of journal, scopes of journal etc.
regards
MJM
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals