How to Deal With Stupid Peer Reviewer Journal

Peer Review Week 2017 (#PeerRevWk17) is taking place betwixt 11^thursday-17^th September. The theme of this year is transparency (sentry out for content #TransparencyInReview). Here at Elsevier we are pleased to announce a free webinar on Sept twenty^th' on the subject of "how to write a terrible review" (sign upwards here). As an accessory, we offering beneath Dr Blocken'southward commodity on the same subject.

---

There is probably no rule as applicative to the activity of peer review as the and then-chosen "golden rule" or law of reciprocity: exercise not care for others in ways that yous practice non want to exist treated yourself. This holds for the relation of the peer reviewer to the authors, the editor, and even the wider scientific community. Every bit publication pressure and the quantity of submissions keep to increase, then does the need for high-quality peer reviews. Several best practice guidelines and rules have been published before. This document takes a different approach, by highlighting ten things you lot should certainly NOT exercise. I've based them on my experiences in the exact sciences/technology fields, but some of them may well hold true, any your discipline.

---

Y'all are not lone in experiencing pressure to publish. Many authors find themselves in this situation and, when submitting their papers, exercise then in the hope that their manufactures volition receive fast, fair, complete and constructive peer reviews. Without such peer reviews, the publication system cannot be. Some systematically reject review invitations with the argument of beingness too busy. Yeah, certainly, nosotros all are. But if yous desire to come across your own papers published, you should realize that, for every submission (not publication!) of your own, you should be willing to review at least ii or three papers yourself. Only even and so there are plenty of ways to thoroughly disappoint the editor, the authors and fifty-fifty to negatively bear on the wider scientific customs: just follow ane or more of the tips beneath.

1. Accept an invitation to review when you should not
2. Submit your review very late or non at all
3. Ignore messages from the editor
4. Do not bank check for adherence to publication ethics
5. Provide a useless review
6. Forget to address the primal components of the article
7. Provide unclear, unfair and biased statements
8. Unjustly obstruct publication or breach confidentiality
9. Suggest that the authors violate publication ethics
10. Forget to review your review with the "golden rule"

    _{Paradigm: "Worn out", 1882. Pencil on watercolour newspaper. Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890)}

---

1. Accept an invitation to review when yous should not

   If you respect reciprocity, you will exist willing to accept review invitations, certainly from journals in which you have published yourself or to which you desire to submit your ain work in the futurity. However, do not overstretch yourself. Practice not accept a review invitation when y'all have never experienced the peer review process every bit an author. Do not accept to review papers on a topic that does not match your area of expertise, or when you accept a conflict of interest. If you agreed also fast and realise these issues merely afterward accepting to write the review, don't worry. Notify the editor instead of delivering the least poor peer review possible. Certainly practise not take no action at all. The writer(southward) and editor(s) are waiting for you. Don't leave them in suspense.



2. Submit your review very late or non at all

   Reciprocity is often but not always advised. If you accept experienced waiting for a (very) delayed review as an author yourself, do non repeat the treatment if acting as a reviewer. Unfortunately, this does happen too often and a vicious circle can sally that is very dissentious to the journal and to the research community in that field as a whole. Plain, this will not do good you in the long run either. Accepting a review too means committing to a deadline. Sure, unexpected circumstances can occur. In that case, notify the editor and respectfully enquire for an extension. The worst choice is to accept the invitation but to never send your review. It delays the whole process because it causes the editor to invite new reviewers. This also increases the burden on your colleagues who now take to do the  review yous should have washed. If your dream is to impersonate the editor'due south nightmare: then tip no. 2 is for you.



3. Ignore messages from the editor

   If you evangelize a good review in time, you will probably but receive automatic messages. In other cases, the editor might contact y'all personally. Either to ask for the status (in case you lot are running tardily) or to ask for additional information (in example your review is unclear or incomplete). Non answering a question is considered rather impolite in daily life. Ignoring an editor's question communicated past email is no dissimilar. If y'all want to give the editor a major headache and want to delay the whole process as much as you can, you lot might discover this tip suits your needs.



4. Do not check for adherence to publication ideals

   Publication ethics contains many elements. Plagiarism, for ane, is a serious breach of publishing ethics and in some cases may likewise exist copyright infringement. As publication pressure continues to increase, so practice attempts at plagiarism. Although well-nigh bookish publishers have installed very elaborate procedures to detect plagiarism, such equally Crossref Similarity Check, probably the best detection instrument for plagiarism in a given subfield of science is you: the peer reviewer who knows the literature and the land of the fine art in the field intimately. Sometimes issues can be solved past reminding authors that they should add the proper references in the proper places, to betoken that some statements and findings are not theirs but should exist attributed to others. Reviewers should clearly betoken to the editor when they find plagiarized content, which evidently includes claiming achievements or ideas from other authors. But this also holds for publications by the same authors, which add together niggling to the field. This is probably the only case in which a review with a unmarried paragraph will suffice and in which following tip no. 6 is allowed – to assistance save y'all time – as true plagiarism cancels the need for any further comments.



5. Provide a useless review

   And then, y'all have accepted the review invitation, but the borderline is approaching and you find yourself having better things to do than reviewing others' work. Information technology happens to all of united states. When this happens, information technology can exist tempting to merely browse the commodity and write a few general and vague lines that are absolutely of no utilise to the editor and the authors. This is non only utterly disrespectful to the author's work, but also requires the editor to invite new reviewers, which will increment the burden on others and delay the whole process. You will also direct damage your own reputation: your advice (accept/revise/reject) might be in direct contrast to the advice by the other reviewers. But even without that, the editor will not consider your reviews seriously anymore and might end inviting you in the futurity. There is no taking without giving. The law of reciprocity implies that y'all cannot await that others will keep providing useful reviews for your papers, if you do not render the favour. Maybe you lot think you will merely requite a very poor impression to this single editor, merely the effect might very well be shared with the editorial board. If y'all do non intendance that much virtually your academic reputation and y'all practice non listen causing frustration to editors and authors, this tip tin save you a lot of fourth dimension.



6. Forget to address the key components of the article

   These are questions nearly the primal components of an commodity that editors need your review to answer:

   - Does the commodity fit the scope of the journal?
   - Is the research novel?
   - Is the championship representative of the article contents?
   - Does the abstract summarise the contents clearly?
   - Is the state of the art well described and the knowledge gap conspicuously defined?
   - Are the objectives well articulated?
   - Is the applied research methodology solid?
   - Are the results reliable and have the objectives been reached?
   - Are the limitations correctly mentioned?
   - Are the conclusions justified?

   If necessary, provide recommendations to the authors on how to improve these components. In addition, propose authors to remove subjective statements expressing personal bias, emotional involvement etc. While the authors may discover that the xx% deviation between the results from their new experiment and those of a previous experiment is a really proficient agreement, your solemn duty is to suppress their enthusiasm by asking them to supersede subjective statements such every bit "an excellent agreement was obtained" by an objective argument like "the difference was 20%". The authors might non like it, simply information technology is in their best involvement. Also recommend comeback of the championship, abstract, highlights, tables, and – certainly – figures if necessary. Writer guidelines frequently call figures "artwork" but oftentimes they are piece of work rather than art (at to the lowest degree where the reader is concerned!).



7. Provide unclear, unfair and biased statements

   Good ingredients for a truly terrible peer review are unclear, unfair and biased statements.

   Your comments and recommendations should be clear and unambiguous. Statements similar "the methodology is not solid" or "the conclusions are unjustified" have no value per se apart from being in line with tip no. v. Description is of import as editors and authors cannot read your listen; they tin can but read your review. Exercise not just state what should be improved but too suggest how it tin can be improved. Avoid dismissive, unfair and biased statements. You would have washed a much better and much more thorough chore than the authors, right? Call up over again. Generally, it is much easier to identify deficiencies in others' work than in your ain. This does non hateful that your work is better; it simply means that you, also, will demand peer reviewers that provide clear, fair and unbiased comments pointing you to the deficiencies in your own piece of work. You lot should be grateful for that, and you should make sure the authors volition be grateful to you. No research is perfect, and every publication, no matter the enquiry area or topic, is at best a very minor link in the long concatenation of incremental knowledge advocacy in a tiny subfield of science. Modesty suits authors well, and the same goes for peer reviewers. It will happen occasionally that yous take to review a very good paper. Compared to many other papers, this will be a relief. In such a example, don't squeeze yourself to provide critical comments, but spend a few lines on expressing your appreciation for the authors' work.



8. Unjustly obstruct publication or breach confidentiality

   If you want to be sure never to receive a review invitation once again from a given journal, you lot can follow this tip. It is highly unlikely that you or your co-workers are the only ones on planet World working on a specific topic in a specific field. If others are working on the same topic, it is rather likely that y'all volition be invited to review their paper. Then what if you have just submitted a paper on this topic yourself to another periodical, or are currently preparing such a paper? The most severe breach of reviewer ideals would be to unjustly obstruct the publication of the author's work and/or to employ your cognition of their work to gain a competitive border. Less astringent just withal very unethical is to alienation confidentiality past sharing the contents of the submission with others prior to publication. If you cannot bring yourself to provide a fair, fast and constructive review – which is ok, we are all human – then you should immediately declare a conflict of interest and notify the editor. Honesty and virtue always outrank personal advancement and temporary fame.



9. Propose that the authors violate publication ethics

   Equally a reviewer, y'all have some power. Use information technology fairly, wisely and in moderation, ever in view of supporting the journal and your inquiry field. Do not ask authors to provide unfair or biased statements well-nigh their work or the work of others. Practice non ask the authors to add citations that are not relevant – certainly do non ask them to add irrelevant citations to your ain papers to inflate your citation record and h index. If you do not like reviewing, if you lot want to thoroughly disappoint the editor or if you desire to make sure he or she will never invite you again, this tip is for you.



10. Forget to review your review with the "gold rule"

    Finally, with or without the above-mentioned tips, you accept reached the stage where your review is ready. Right? No, non really. It is not unlikely that you have written something that you will regret afterwards, when reading your review again. And so make sure to reread your review before submitting it to the journal. At this stage, in particular, apply the golden dominion: do not do that to authors which you would not care to receive from reviewers yourself. Examine the review and remove potentially harsh or offensive statements. Rephrase potentially unclear, unfair or biased comments. Above all: exist polite, off-white and kind. If yous recommend revision of the paper, do so kindly. If possible, wrap upward your criticism by adding a compliment or ii. Fifty-fifty if you have to recommend rejection of the newspaper, do and then kindly and politely. Authors will feel bad in this case, in that location is no need to make things worse.

---

Oscar Wilde* stated: "Experience is simply the name nosotros give our mistakes." As a reviewer, you have the opportunity to aid building the experience of the authors in publishing their work. Conversely, your review activities will also help you to get a meliorate author yourself. Reviewing is an essential job of a scientist to advance the research field and the journals in this field. Practice not accept information technology lightly.

_{*Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde, Irish writer and poet, 1854-1900.}

brownprourting1939.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/ten-tips-for-a-truly-terrible-peer-review

Share this post