GeoVerbiage

You've all heard about shingling and what it is.  As a reviewer, you can be very helpful to the editor by pointing out that a paper is a shingle.  Keep in mind that, even in specialty journals, the editors may come from a wide variety of backgrounds and may not be familiar with all aspects of the literature.  At high-load journals, it may be very difficult if not impossible for the editors to do the legwork--which can take a couple of hours or more per paper--to figure out if a paper is a shingle, so they really are dependent on the reviewers. Before I start, though, let me define shingling for those of you who might not be that familiar with the concept.  Shingling is publishing basically the same paper as one you've published before, but with some new data added, resulting in, at best, a mere expansion of already-reached conclusions. Not all papers that have new data added to old data are shingles.  I have seen many papers that add new data to previous wor...

This post is in response to a couple more reader queries.  To paraphrase, the queries were: (1) If I can't understand a paper, how do I know it's the author's fault or my lack of comprehension? (2) How do I tell the difference between things I as a reviewer think the paper should have done, either by necessity or to meet standards (mine, the authors', or the journal's) versus general betterment of the work?  (1)  Aside from the case of poor English, which was addressed in Reviewing #8, there are a couple of reasons this might happen.  One is if you were sent a paper that is so far outside of your expertise you cannot possibly give it a critical review.  It happens, but I do think reviewers sometimes turn down invitations too quickly on this basis.  Most authors want their audience to be larger than the handful of people in their specialty, so having reviewers who aren't in the center of a particular field can be very useful to editors.  But ...

Note:  Since writing the essay below, I've learned that it is considered rude in some quarters to suggest that a paper be read by a native English speaker because it makes the assumption that the author is not a native.  I think this criticism is a bit off base because if you have any sensitivity to how various non-native English speakers speak English, it's pretty easy to pick up on what their native language is--even with seeing their names.  Having said that, the more tactful approach would be to point out that it is not in idiomatic English and ask the author to edit it accordingly.  Then it's up to the author to figure out what to do. If editors were paid, I'd just suggest the editors do the necessary editing, but they usually aren't, so that' a big ask.  Of course, if the English is so poor that a paper cannot be understood, then the reviewer/editor has no choice but to point that out (this goes for native English speakers, too, by the way).  If you a...

This post is in response to a reader query (restated slightly from the original comment):   How do you decide when (as an author) to just submit to a different journal instead of making major revisions, and is this is ok? I took this to mean that the editor has asked for major revisions, rather than rejecting your work ("major revisions" would include decisions like "reject--invite resubmission"). The short is answer is, of course it's OK--you can do whatever you want with your work.  There is nothing unethical about submitting to another journal.  It would be considered courteous to inform the editor of this, although not necessary. Further developing this response, however, the answer is actually complex because it kind of depends on what major revisions are being asked for. Major revision may be requested on two broad bases, or a combination of the two.  One might be called technical and the other might be called editorial.  I'll address the latter...

It appears some people can leave comments and some cannot.  I have read the help forums on this topic and note that they are all pretty old, at least two years old.  I also don't understand all the technical language.  So far as I can determine, if you have disabled third-party cookies, you will be unable to post comments. Whether you do so is entirely up to you.  Enabling cookies can pose some security dangers in some computers and for some people.  If you enable cookies, you do so at your own risk. For residents of the EU, enabling cookies can result in a loss of privacy.  I recommend you not enable  cookies.  I cannot control your privacy settings, so you are responsible for your own actions.

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...

OK, you've accepted the assignment to review a paper.  I've already outlined the elements of a good review and the etiquette of turning down a review request.  Now I'd like to discuss the etiquette of reviewing. Don't accept a review assignment unless you are positive you can do it within the time limit set by the journal.  To ensure that you do, set aside a time--put it on your calendar, even--to do it.  Don't fall into the trap of assuming that because the deadline is 30 days out, you'll surely find the time.  In fact, I would recommend having a self-imposed deadline of 2 weeks.  It's easier to look 2 weeks into the future than a month, you will get it off your desk faster, and you'll avoid some of the tactics used by some journals to keep the review process moving (see below). Here are some of the things that can happen if you are late with your review: Decisions are delayed.  Put yourself in the author's shoes.  You've submitted a manus...