Reviewing #1--Getting started

This post is imported from Facebook, so if you were in on that discussion, this will be a repeat.

Reviewing is time consuming. How do I get started?
Review a paper like you would read it. Hardly anyone starts with the title and reads straight through. You'll probably have already read the abstract or you wouldn't have accepted the invitation to review. Read the introduction then the conclusions. The conclusions should logically follow from the introduction. If they do, it will probably be a good paper; if they don't, prepare for a bit of a slog. (NB: Editors try to catch the really bad ones, but keep in mind the editor might not be an expert.) Then, with the basic gist of the paper, start over and read it through. 
I have found it very useful to keep a Word file open as I read and, where I have specific comments or issues I want to return to, I note them in the file. The line numbers in the ms are very helpful for this. Once you've read it through, go to your Word document and write the review, referring back to the manuscript if needed. Then go back to the abstract and make sure it captures the paper accurately.
Unless you have an uncontrollable "red pen", don't bother with corrections of spelling, punctuation, etc. Don't cross-check the references with the reference list. This isn't your job and it's really, really time consuming. That's not to say it isn't appreciated, but you don't have time for that.
Finally, if the journal asks for a "rating" (e.g., "minor revision", "major revision", etc.), make sure it lines up with your review. It is exceedingly common to see "minor revision" coupled with a review that actually calls for "major revision".
Questions?

Comments

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 ha...
Read more

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 cann...
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 ...
Read more