Reviews, reviewers and reviewing

Abstract

" button we may recall some points, as Kotsis and Chung revealed in their very useful quick guide on reviewing [4,5]. Namely, questioning if your individual experience is appropriate for serving as a referee for the paper proposed and you can provide a timely and unbiased opinion. If you feel qualified to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and can do so in the required time, without conflicts of interest, you may accept the request and do your best to deliver a thoughtful and thorough review. But then, what next? Depending on how busy and/or organized you are, you might start thinking about that review assignment right away or perhaps a few days later. You should bear in mind that a proper, carefully prepared review might take up quite a lot of your time, so plan ahead to be able to dedicate a few hours for the work. The current 'push system' of review where the editor assigns a reviewer without having an insight into the reviewers time constraints may need to be modified to a 'pull system' where the reviewer shows his availability and willingness to review a manuscript at a specific time point. This revolution would require a drastic modification of the culture, computer systems and workflow currently in place. In addition, it is possible that the good reviewers may never be available to flag their desire to perform a review [6]. Now you face the next question: what makes a good review?Although not perfect, peer review is still at the heart of scientific quality control, and is a way for each of us to

The good, the bad and the rude peer-review

“…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].…”

Substandard Journal Management: Wastage of Authors’ Motivation

“…According to Benos et al [3], an able reviewer is one who espouses fair-mindedness, meticulousness, and truthfulness. Even though most referees do not have official training in the 'art of reviewing', they still contribute time and effort to ensure that quality research reaches its intended audience [4].…”

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

“…Peer-review (refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's work to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It is a collaborative process that allows manuscripts submitted to a journal, conference or a book to be evaluated and commented upon by independent, usually anonymous experts within the same field of research [1,2]. It provides feedback for authors to help to improve their work, and further, it helps the editor to decide whether the work should be accepted, revised, or rejected.…”

“…Peer-reviewers (referees) are experts qualified to perform reasonably unbiased evaluation in a topic. They are ordinary scientists who provide their pro-bono scientific work for peerreview within their busy schedule; they should provide valuable comments to the editor, and they are expected to alert the editor to any problems they identify [1,2]. The quality of the reviewers, therefore, determines the quality of the peer-review.…”