I agree that reviewers should be competent in the same research area as the author of the submitted paper (or, if this is not possible, it could be also fine if one reviewer would be competent in this theory and the other in this methodology). Some journals tell reviewers to identify some keywords showing in which areas they are more competent. If these match the keywords of the submitted paper, then these reviewers will be considered suitable. Some people become reviewers by invitation (e.g. the editor meets them at a conference or sends an e-mail and asks to register), some after they have submitted a paper to this journal and some register themselves as reviewers, but not all of them have published many papers. Anyway, having several publications does not always guarantee that a person is a good (helpful) reviewer, sometimes younger scholars do a more thorough job (but some may be also too strict or too incompetent).

the paper that i have tagged to this question is one example where my paper was reviewed by expert in identification of the parasite to molecular level.

this paper was rejected by 3 Indian journals which were rejected just in 5 days or so.

these journals have not bothered to contact researchers specialized on that particular topic of research and did not give a chance to the author

MY OPINION IS THAT A REVIEWER MUST BE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS GOT AT LEAST 1 PAPER TO HIS CREDIT ON THE TOPIC HE IS ASKED TO REVIEW

Eg...

A MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGIST CANNOT BE AN EXPERT IN ALL THE AREAS (bacteriology, mycology, parasitology virology)

I agree that reviewers should be competent in the same research area as the author of the submitted paper (or, if this is not possible, it could be also fine if one reviewer would be competent in this theory and the other in this methodology). Some journals tell reviewers to identify some keywords showing in which areas they are more competent. If these match the keywords of the submitted paper, then these reviewers will be considered suitable. Some people become reviewers by invitation (e.g. the editor meets them at a conference or sends an e-mail and asks to register), some after they have submitted a paper to this journal and some register themselves as reviewers, but not all of them have published many papers. Anyway, having several publications does not always guarantee that a person is a good (helpful) reviewer, sometimes younger scholars do a more thorough job (but some may be also too strict or too incompetent).

Good answer Tiia - there is no 'absolute' formulae that can promise quality reviewers. There are experienced authors (so, to me, the number of publications is not a good indicator) who are poor reviewers and, as Tiia correctly observes, novice reviewers who put their 'heart and soul' into reviews. The whole system is based on 'good faith' - and editors can only do their best within those parameters. The system is also a bit of a 'double-edged sword'. For instance, I review for over 30 'reputable' journals - which means that, sometimes (depending on other commitments), I have to pick and choose which ones I review for. That might often mean that I'm reviewing for for the more established journals that already have a large body of good quality reviewers - whereas the less established journals that might benefit more from my services - potentially miss out. It can be a bit of a lottery out there.

Hello all,

Indeed, this is a problem, and I agree it is not the number of publication or how famous you are to be a good reviewer - I believe as correctly outlined by Dean that the new reviewers will be very careful and very thorough in their reviews... Further, the well established journals will have a timeline as to when the papers will be received, and how long it will take for reviewers to look at the papers and provide a review... it will take more than few days!

Regards

Theodora Issa

My concern was really not the qualification of the reviewer but i was of the feeling that if a reviewer has at least some good contributions he will be better off in deciding the fate of a paper and not just for the sake. His experience of such review process for his own papers would have tought him many lessons on what aspects a reviewer has to look at keenly while reviewing

Ramana - that might well be the case. On the other hand, those with experience may be a bit more cynical and might be a little more 'old school' in that they had to struggle through their scholarly 'journey' - so everyone else has to learn 'the hard way'.

i cannot stop writing my opinion.

But i am really worried if reviewers copy the ideas...content...

That is what has made me to opine that one just cannot register himself as a reviewer but has to do some work fist, get some publishing profile in the form of published articles

Not a problem Ramana. My last post related to experienced reviewers. Most reputable journals will request that new reviewers have at least some previous reviewing experience. If not, they will normally request a level of experience at publishing. Either way - it's not a 'fool-proof' system. Unfortunately, from my experience, once reviewers are accepted by a journal by passing the minimum requirements - they are accepted until they leave or perform so badly that they are not called upon. Personally, I think that a better system would have an 'apprentice' period of several months for new reviewers to prove themselves.

I often work in fields with few established "experts," so I value reviewers with lived experience of the topic at hand, but whose academic training may be in another field.

As a guest editor I've been using the ScholarOne manuscript system, which enables a review of the reviewers themselves - their turn-around time, the number of reviews they've done, their average score and the editor's decision on the manuscripts they reviewed. I think this goes a long way to developing a sense of a reviewer over time.

Each manuscript has particular review needs. I would be hesitant to judge reviewers by how many articles they've published themselves. Publication history doesn't assess knowledge or skill, only the production culture in which they were trained. Some fields publish frequently, while others hardly publish at all.

Regarding Ramana kv's concern: If a reviewer were that corrupt they would also have to be extremely fast. It would be difficult to plagiarize, then submit the new manuscript in time to have it reviewed and published before the original.

Dear Margaret Robinson: I am personally not critical on the reviewers. My opinion was that a person becomes a better reviewer when he has adequately publishes. This makes him know many a nuances of article review and publication procedures.

I think a reviewer should be always an expert in the same specific field of the submitted original paper. Unfortunately I think that reviewing standards have declined recently. As consequence I think editors should carefully consider the profiles of potential reviewers in their journals. In fact, high quality reviewers with their comments and contributes can really improve the quality of submitted papers.

I have received paper that have been not my area of expertise. Many times i have declined them. If it is not an expert that is reviewing how can we expect a better review of paper submitted

I agree with you Ramana. If we receive a paper that is not our area of expertise we should decline it and if possible suggest other reviewer name.

Good discussion - however, when you are requested to become a reviewer they will ask you about your specialty areas... so, you SHOULD be receiving papers in this area nothing more nothing less... unless the editor did not look at your expertise! which would be inappropriate.