How to evaluate reviewers – the international orthopedics reviewers score (INOR-RS)

Mavrogenis, Andreas F.; Sun, Jing; Quaile, Andrew; Scarlat, Marius M.

doi:10.1007/s00264-019-04374-2

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A good peer-review should be objective, instructional and informative. It should (1) include critical comments that would be helpful to the editor to make his decision and to the authors to improve their manuscript, (2) indicate the novelty and significance of the work and if/how it adds to the current literature, (3) identify major flaws in the study hypothesis, materials and methods, techniques, approaches and statistics, (4) denote statements requiring clarification, (5) give details for areas to be improved and list changes to be made, (6) be written in formal and clear writing, well-structured and extend at least one half to two pages, (7) number the points and refer to pages, paragraphs of sections or lines in the manuscript, and (8) review all sections of the manuscript including the citations and illustrations [1].…”

Section: The Good Peer-reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A good peer-reviewer should be responsible and reliable. He/she should (1) accept promptly an invitation, (2) not turn down any invitation for review, (3) return the peer-review on time, (4) provide confidential comments to the editor if he/she detects any misconduct such as plagiarism, unattributed work, unethical procedures, or duplicate publication, and (5) disclose potential conflicts of interest, and decline the invitation if there are any with the authors [1,16].…”

Section: The Good Peer-reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The good, the bad and the rude peer-review

Mavrogenis

Quaile

Scarlat

2020

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer-review is the core of the editorial process and the basis of the publication system. The quality of peer-review depends on the quality of the peer-reviewers. Peer reviewers are supposed to ensure that journals publish high-quality science by evaluating manuscripts and offering suggestions for improvement. Peer-reviewers are typically selected based on their expertise in the areas of research associated with the submitted manuscripts. Although being a peer-reviewer is sometimes frustrating, communication between authors, editors and reviewers in the peer-review process determines the eventual success of the publication; this communication should be formal, constructive, honest and polite [1, 2]. Specific standards of formal and ethical writing are necessary for peer-review. These standards should be maintained throughout the review process of any submitted paper in any particular journal. Peer-review is considered a biased process with identified defects [3-11]; some peer-reviewers are too young with limited experience, not all are equally skilled in the peer-review process, and very few have had a formal training and assessment methods for peer-review [1, 12, 13]. A growing body of quantitative evidence showed violations of objectivity and bias in the peer review process for reasons based on author attributes such as language, institutional affiliation, nationality, and others, authors' identity such as gender and sexuality, and reviewers' perceptions of the field such as territoriality within field, personal gripes with authors, scientific dogma, discontent/distrust of methodological advances [14, 15]. Occasionally, reviewers' comments are rude or unprofessional; in a study, more than half of 1106 anonymous respondents reported receiving at least one "unprofessional" review, and a majority of those said they had received multiple problematic comments including comments tended to personally target a scientist, lack constructive criticism, or unnecessarily harsh or cruel [15]. This editorial note aims to communicate to the readers of the journal the unified set of rules for a good and bad peer-review, and to emphasize on the avoidance and consequences of a rude peer-review.

show abstract

Section: The Good Peer-reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Good Peer-reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The good, the bad and the rude peer-review

Mavrogenis

Quaile

Scarlat

2020

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Providing instructions to peer reviewers about self-citation and asking them for constructive recommendations are necessary. Open peer review could discourage peer reviewer selfcitation; however, there are other advantages and disadvantages to consider in using open peer review, and it is not commonly employed [30][31][32][33].…”

Section: Choosing Citation Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing for “internal orthopaedics”: referencing quality citations

Mavrogenis

Scarlat

2021

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We try to identify and warn the authors for this type of behaviour. Finding good reviewers in crisis is not easy, but it turned out to be less difficult compared to other occasions such as summer holidays; we were pleased to see that the journal's reviewers reply promptly and accept a review assignment, and return on time with a good and constructive review [10,11]. The editors and reviewers of the journal opt for quality publications to increase the impact of the journal and the visibility of the submitted/ published papers [12].…”

Section: Orthopaedic Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%