Reviewing #2--What makes a good review?


The most important task for a reviewer is to do a good review.  By "good", I mean constructive and as comprehensive as you have time for but comprehensive enough (see "constructive").

Don't pull your punches, but don't be sarcastic or dismissive, either.  One would think this would go without saying, but it's not.  So what do I mean when I say "don't pull your punches"?

Human nature is such that we read the good and ignore the bad.  If you wrap all the negative comments in cotton, the author(s) will misread them or won't take them seriously.  So it's best to just be straightforward and candid.  Explain what the problem is and why it's a problem (and there may be multiple problems).  And, if you are so inclined, suggest a solution.  If you cite references, be sure to provide them.

Basically, follow the Golden Rule.  Ask yourself if your review will either help the author(s) improve the manuscript, or if the manuscript cannot be improved, be informative as to what you think the fatal flaws are.

It is also important to follow the journal guidelines.  It may be a wonderful paper but not suitable for the journal.  You can sometimes provide this information in confidential comments to the editor, but it's nice for the editor if you tell the author(s) why, too.  Makes the editor's job a lot easier.  The journal I edit for requires that the papers be provocative and/or innovative (preferably both) and be of interest to the broad readership.  The latter is usually pretty easy for the editor to assess, but the former may not be because of a disconnect between the editor's specialty and yours (and the author[s]).  If it's not innovative, say so and say why.

Comments

  1. UnknownSeptember 20, 2017 at 6:47 PM

    This is all great stuff Judy. Not sure about the order these are appearing on the site, I had to search (literally) to get this one. One idea, is whether you would take weird anonymous questions? When situations arise, it would be great to be able to ask someone independently. Also, if you can help normalize the thoughts of the new reviewer that would be great: like, how to tell if it is the author's fault, or your fault for not understanding their paper. And why both are ok. How to tell the difference between things you as a reviewer think the paper should have done, either by necessity, or to meet standards (yours or theirs), or for general betterment of the work? How to decide when (as an author) to just submit to a different journal instead of major revisions, and whether this is ok. Thanks very much!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GeoVerbiageSeptember 21, 2017 at 9:18 AM

      I'm not sure there's a way I can change the order. I'll try, but I suspect it's out of my control and based on when I publish the comments.

      Great ideas for topics! I'll try to get to them.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reviewing #7--To sign or not to sign?

Whether you sign your reviews is a personal decision, and I would never question someone who decides on anonymity.  But, here's my take on it.  I decided from my first review request, which must have been some time in the early or mid-1980s, to sign all my reviews.  I did this despite the fact that most people opted for anonymity and many women often concealed their sex by using only initials (I also decided to publish using my full name). I made this decision for one reason.  I felt (and still feel) that if I were critical of someone's work, I should have the courage of my convictions.  Science is supposed to be a free exchange of ideas, and hiding behind anonymity in reviews is not, in my mind, conducive to that kind of transparency.  I would sign my reviews of NSF proposals, if NSF would let me (they will not allow you to sign, and will strip out any attempt to do so). I cannot know what I don't know, so I have no idea if this decision has had negative conseq
Read more

Reviewing #3--Why should I review papers?

Let's face it, reviewing even short papers is time consuming, and time is at a premium.  There is little reward. Reviewing can have a direct impact on your career in only two instances I can think of. One is, if you're going up for tenure and have reviewed papers for major journals and still managed to excel in other respects, that's a feather in your cap.  Being invited to review papers for major journals early in your career looks good on the CV (or resume).  After all, it may mean someone outside your university knows who you are and respects you (or someone inside your university recommended you--either way, it's good).  The other instance is after tenure.  If your CV does not show that you have done any reviewing, it can be a bit negative because of the expectation that you should be using your expertise to give back to the community. But those impacts are low.  No one is denied tenure or further promotion and pay raises because they didn't do any reviewing
Read more