Who teaches the referee?

Isaacs, David

doi:10.1111/j.1440-1754.2004.00409.x

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The authors will still receive the dismissed review but with a clear confirmation of the actions that we have taken. Second, criticism is what we want, in the more narrow definition of the term: skilful analysis of the manuscript and its contents; rather than analysis that is censorious or fault finding (Isaacs, ). However, a review that has a skilful analysis can be delivered in a way that appears censorious through its delivery, which may make a major difference both to more junior authors (Sheppard, ), but also to how much faith, as Editors, we have in the reviewer (see also Anonymous, ).…”

Section: What Do You Value In a Written Recommendation For Authors?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In preparing the material for this session, I realized that I was encoding into routine a series of practices that I look for in the reviews we receive at Earth Surface Processes and Landforms (ESPL). In looking across reviewing practices more widely, across a range of science journals, I detected a common theme: a tendency to see that reviewing is something that we typically learn by osmosis; and a number of journals have flagged the need to make sure that reviewers (as well as authors) receive proper training (Isaacs, ; Shugan, ; Moizer, ). Given the importance of publication to authors, the time that authors invest in preparing their manuscripts, and the critical role that reviewers play in defining the corpus of knowledge that constitutes our discipline, drifting into reviewing practice by osmosis carries risks: that our submitted manuscripts, and their authors, might not get the attention that they deserve; and, most seriously, that reviewing practices acquired through experience are not subject to the proper scrutiny and formation that they require.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seeking good peer review in geomorphology

Lane

2012

Earth Surf Processes Landf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an extended guide to reviewing for ESPL in particular and geomorphology in general. After a brief consideration of both how we choose reviewers and why we hope that reviewers will accept, I consider what makes a fair and constructive review. I note that we aim to publish papers with the rigour (r) necessary to sustain an original and significant contribution (q). I note that judging q is increasingly difficult because of the ever-growing size of the discipline (the Q). This is the sense in which we rarely have a full appreciation of Q, and our reviews are inevitably going to contain some bias. It is this bias that cannot be avoided (cf. Nicholas and Gordon, 2011) and makes the job of ESPL's Editors of critical importance. With this in mind, I identify six elements of a good review: (1) an introductory statement that explains your assessment of your competences in relation to the manuscript (r and Q); (2) a summative view of the originality and significance of the manuscript (q) in relation to Q: (3) a summative view of the methodological rigour of the manuscript (r); (4) identification and justification of any major concerns; (5) identification of any minor issues to be corrected if you think the manuscript merits eventual publication; and (6) note of any typographical or presentation issues to be addressed although this latter activity is also an editorial responsibility. In addition, I note the importance of a constructive review, grounded in what is written in the manuscript, justified where appropriate and avoiding reference to personal views as far as is possible. I conclude with a discussion of whether or not you should sign your review openly and the importance of reviewer confidentiality.

show abstract

Section: What Do You Value In a Written Recommendation For Authors?mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeking good peer review in geomorphology

Lane

2012

Earth Surf Processes Landf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Who better than an experienced referee to teach trainees how to be a referee? 1,2 This 'mentoring' from an 'older' hand is generally regarded as a very useful aspect of training for an academic appointment. With falling numbers of full-time academics in orthodontics, who will undertake this in the future?…”

Section: Training the Reviewer?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Training the Reviewer?

Millett¹

2006

Journal of Orthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We read with interest the timely article by Dr Isaacs entitled, ‘Peer review: who teaches the referee 1 ?’ The success of a journal depends on the quality of the peer review process. Editors are the ‘gatekeepers’ of science; reviewers are the experts upon whom an editor relies to set the highest possible standards.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%