Being tough sometimes is ok but not “Rude.” I tend to be tough in some specific situations, like, when it seems that the author doesn’t know what he is doing and just through some words, or when the method is wrong from the beginning to the end, or when he is taking some parts from other researchers without mentioning. Give some space and freedom to the author.ĭo not be so harsh. The author does not know you to follow your writing style. ![]() Remember, your style of writing is not standard. Besides, complicated and colorful graphs are not an indication of good results. Some papers are establishing new directions of research.Ĭomplicated papers are not necessarily of good quality. Also, think about the impact of the paper in the field. Some papers are really breakthrough in the field even they are not long, or they don’t have complicated and colorful graphs. As a reviewer, you have to have a vision. Don’t make it too complicated.īe open to new ideas and don’t try to take the author to what you want. Try to write in a simple and clear English. As far as you accept the invitation, it is your responsibility, put it on your agenda and do it. Don’t differ your review until you get many notifications from the journal. This stage is the actual review stage when you accepted the invitation to review.ĭon’t start your review when you are not in a good mood.īe responsible and do it in time. ![]() ![]() If for some reason you accept to review a paper, and during the review, you discovered that it is out of your scope, don’t hesitate to contact the editor asking him to pull it out of your responsibility. Sometimes, this review is just a procedure, and they will accept the paper even when you reject it. If you feel that you cannot finish the paper within one month and a half (this is my timing suggestion, it is not standard), decline the review.ĭon’t waste your time to review for fake and low-quality journals. If you don’t have time, don’t waste others’ time also. This may also harm your reputation in the future if the editor knows that without informing him. If you have a conflict of interest with one of the authors, never even accept this paper to review. Accepting a paper out of your scope will lead to delay in the review process also. Besides, you will spend longer time to understand and review. When you accept a paper out of your scope, most probably, your judgment will not be fair. This stage is when you get an invitation to review and you have to accept or decline it.ĭon’t accept a paper if it does not belong to your field of expertise. I will update these guidelines from time to time when I recognize some new issues. I will categorize them into three categories, (1) Accepting a paper to review, (2) Reviewing a paper, and (3)Submitting a review. Combining all these reasons, I decided to write down those points that I recognized during this time and put them all together to form some informal guidelines from my experience. Now, I know most of the journals are providing guides for reviewers, among other guides however, these guides are too formal, and they don’t contain real advice. Of course, by “bad” review I don’t mean that they reject or ask for a revision, but because the reviewer (sometimes the associated editors also) does not know to criticize or give feedback in principle. In fact, while I’m trying my best in this process, sometimes, as an academic, I’m suffering from “bad” review on my papers. Over the time, you become more stable and able to give wise advice. Now, I can confirm that my first review in 2011 is not like my review a few days ago. Of course, you may know this already, but I reach it by experience. I reached to an understanding that, reviewing, criticizing, giving feedback to others’ works is an art. ![]() Over these years, my experience in the review has been improved gradually. I got many certificates, appreciations, and awards for my reviews and feedbacks for those papers I reviewed. I have also served as an Editorial board member for some journals, like Applied Soft Computing, by Elsevier (I.F. Recently, I have tried to record some of them on. I tried my best to help authors to improve their works by giving useful feedback, and I hope others look as critical and constructive to my own work. Third, I see this review process as a public service. Second, you know what others do in research, hence, the review broadens your scope. Imagine that people are reading papers when it is getting published, but I’m reading them even before publication. You may ask why I’m reviewing all these papers? First, I’m getting the most up-to-date papers by this work. Over the past seven years, I have reviewed more than 150 scientific papers in my field.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |