Dear all,
While acting as a reviewer, I am obeying following points
1. Proper respect over the reading the submitted manuscript. But, I have personally observed that few reviewers/editors reject manuscripts simply by reading title, abstract or conclusion. It is not fair.
2. I never review manuscripts beyond my research experience. Also, if needed, I request the editor for additional review.
3. I try to be constructive as much as possible. I believe that a reviewer should do the clear task of taking a constructive way to read a research manuscript and let the editorial board tackle the problem of rejection or acceptance. We not have to work for editor instructions that our rejection rate is 90%
4.I never make decisions that this paper is from a very renowned research group or from a very new researcher.
5. I don't like sadistic pleasure.
What is your opinion 📷📷📷📷📷 ?????
All excellent points, I would also add the following additional point
what does this research add to our pool of knowledge about the subject?
I believe this point is important for a research journal
Review the MS and do not be influenced by the names of contributors, if they have been revealed to you by the editor
I am always trying to improve the manuscript if it is good. However, some of them, being duplication or lacking any innovation, have to be rejected. I feel sorry when I find that my comments were ignored and the paper still published, containing mistakes. I also feel sorry when I find a paper rejected by me is published in another journal.
Dear all
- Most reviewer invitations have been rejected because the manuscripts were uninteresting to me (as representative of the readership) or beyond my expertise. For example on the first, well known narrative, but in another setting
- I am explicit in pertinent cases where I can cover the major theme of the manuscript, but I miss the deep expertise for a specific component
- Once I have accepted to review, my comments have been explicitly aimed at improving the manuscript, linguistically, technically, by suggesting a clearer narrative or by better embedding the story in the international literature.
- Very few (
Hello Santosh K Tiwari
You have described a very noble and ideal approach to reviewing. Similarly, the comment by Hein Van Gils (and everybody) were very positive. But we all know that it is often not so sensible in the real world. So what can we all do as upstanding researchers/reviewers to promote these values?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude