Hi dear colleagues,
1- Why do some editors designate non-specialist reviewers to evaluate scientific articles?
2- Why do some non-specialist reviewers take the responsability to evaluate scientific articles?
3- Who will assume responsibility for the wrong assessment or rejection of the article: reviewer, editor or both?
4- Can it be considered as a scientific betrayal?
Thank you so much for sharing your opinions,
Kind regards
In my own opinion, it is quite unethical to do such. The reviewer(s) should have close or somehow related specialization to such manuscript.
This happens mostly in journals without quality reputation.
I think the vast number of papers that need to be reviewed ... but the number of peer reviewers could not review them all ... Therefore, people who lack the experience to analyze the quality of the research paper conduct reviews, and weak papers are accepted as a result. It is now possible to publish any paper in a mysterious magazine claiming to be peer-reviewed, although the paper or magazine itself may be below the required level.
I'm talking about magazines that have a reputation for good: Another criticism of peer review is that the process is not strictly conducted by scientific conferences in order to obtain large numbers of papers submitted. Such conferences often accept any paper sent, regardless of their credibility or spread of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more money they can make from author registration fees
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude