How to become good at peer review: A guide for young scientists

Jennifer Raff —  December 13, 2013 — 67 Comments

Peer review is at the heart of the scientific method. Its philosophy is based on the idea that one’s research must survive the scrutiny of experts before it is presented to the larger scientific community as worthy of serious consideration. Reviewers (also known as referees) are experts in a particular topic or field. They have the requisite experience and knowledge to evaluate whether a study’s methods are appropriate, results are accurate, and the authors’ interpretations of the results are reasonable. Referees are expected to alert the journal editor to any problems they identify, and make recommendations as to whether a paper should be accepted, returned to the authors for revisions, or rejected. Referees are not expected to replicate results or (necessarily) to be able to identify deliberate fraud. While it’s by no means a perfect system (see, for example, the rising rates of paper retractions), it is still the best system of scientific quality control that we have. In fact, it’s such a central part of the scientific process that one can often identify questionable scientific findings by their authors’ objections to the rigor of review (and attempts to circumvent it by a variety of methods, including self-publication).

Yet the quality of this system is ultimately dependent on the quality of the reviewers themselves. Many graduate programs don’t explicitly teach courses on how to review papers. Instead, a young scientist may learn how to review a paper under the guidance of his or her mentor, through journal clubs, or simply through trial and error. I’ve been thinking about this topic a lot, and decided to put together a set of guidelines for young scientists. In doing so, I also hope to help non-scientists understand a bit more about the process.

I intend for this to be an evolving post, so I ask for my colleagues’ help in improving it. At the end the post, I’m assembling a list of resources for further reading. If you have any suggestions or resources, please send them to me and I’ll add them.

Ethical considerations

Here are some important practices to keep in mind as you conduct the review:

1. Expertise: Ask yourself honestly whether this paper falls within the scope of your expertise. If it falls too far outside of your discipline and knowledge, it’s better to leave the review to someone else. If you decline to review (for whatever reason), it’s courteous to recommend several alternate referees to the editor.

2. Timeliness: It’s important that you make an effort to return a review within the specified deadline. People’s research careers may be depending on how quickly their papers are published. Take into consideration your schedule when you’re deciding whether to review a paper. If you’re a relatively young researcher, you may need to put in additional time in order to familiarize yourself with any background literature and methods that might be new to you. This isn’t a small thing, especially when balanced with all your other duties (coursework, teaching, research, writing). And keep in mind that complicated papers take more time to evaluate. For example, it took me about 8 or 10 hours (spread out over several days) to do my most recent review of a particular manuscript, and another 4 hours to review the revised version. If you don’t think you can commit enough time to the review in order to make the deadline, you should decline.

3. Take it seriously:Peer review is at the heart of the scientific process, and in order for the process to work, the review must be rigorous. Don’t just sign off on a paper or do a slapdash job; read it critically (see my suggestions for how to do so below). Your review should ideally help the authors to improve the quality of their manuscript, and contribute to the overall quality of the journal.

4. Avoid bias: Absolutely do not review a manuscript if you have a strong feeling (positive or negative) about any of the authors. Absolutely do not review a manuscript with any intention of reaping personal or professional benefit from it. Be aware that several studies have revealed implicit biases (such as gender bias) in peer review. Abstracts with female senior authors are systematically more poorly reviewed than abstracts with male senior authors (Knobloch-Westerwick et al. 2013), and “all articles with women in dominant author positions receive fewer citations than those with men in the same positions.” (Larivière et al. 2013)

To avoid biases of all kinds, make a concerted, deliberate effort to always review the manuscript in front of you, not the authors.

5. Don’t be intimidated: Remember that reviewing is a place where the implicit hierarchy of academia should not apply, ever. The authors of the manuscript might be the biggest names in the field, but that doesn’t automatically make them right.

6. Review anonymously? There have been some calls in discussions of peer review for doing away with anonymity of referees, as anonymity is seen by some as facilitating bullying. In fact, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) requires all reviewers to be identified. In a study of the effect of open peer review on the quality of reviews, it was suggested that “if reviewers have to sign their reviews they may put more effort into their reviews and so produce better ones “, and also that “ open peer review should increase both the credit and accountability for peer reviewing, both of which seem desirable.” (van Rooyen et al. 1999). In contrast, this discussion in Nature Neuroscience recommended the continuation of anonymous review.

As an early career scientist, I feel more comfortable critiquing my colleagues’ work anonymously. But I know several peers who have reached the opposite conclusion. Ultimately, the decision as to whether or not to sign your review is a completely personal one.

7. Respect confidentiality: Don’t talk about the manuscript, its results, or its methods with outsiders. Don’t use information from the manuscript prior to its publication. Don’t communicate with the authors about their manuscript. All thoughts and comments on it should only go to the editor.

How to review critically, but fairly
You should be an expert at this by now, because you’ve been reading and thinking about papers nonstop since the beginning of graduate school. The process is basically the same for reviewing, except that a reviewer must be even more thorough. Here are a few tips, divided into four topics (if
you want some more suggestions on how to read critically, my post on how to read and understand the scientific literature applies to scientists as much as non-scientists). I suggest you take notes constantly as you go through the review process. Draft your response only after you’ve read the entirety of the submission (including Supplementary Online Information) several times! Avoid being unnecessarily harsh or abusive; your criticism should be constructive in tone.

1) The Introduction/Background
Some questions to ask:

An approach to critically evaluating the Introduction/Background portion of a manuscript.

An approach to critically evaluating the Introduction/Background portion of a manuscript.

Things to watch out for in this section:
-An unoriginal, uninteresting, or irrelevant study. Ask whether the questions the authors are addressing really advance the field in a meaningful way.

-A paper which does not include all appropriate references, or which inappropriately emphasizes some. I suggest identifying the specific question and doing a literature search on your own, as if YOU were writing the paper. Then compare your list of references to the authors’. Are you familiar with all of them? (This approach has tangential benefits, as it will help you become better acquainted with the literature of your field). If the authors cite certain studies with which you’re not familiar, read them! See if you agree with how they’re discussed. If the authors haven’t cited studies that they should have, make a note of it, and include it in your review. And yes, it’s perfectly fine to suggest that they cite your own papers, if it’s appropriate (the flip side: don’t be “that reviewer” who demands that everyone cite him/her, or agree with his/her pet hypotheses. This process isn’t about you).

2) Approach/Methods

Some questions to ask:

An approach to critically evaluating the Approach/Methods portion of a manuscript

An approach to critically evaluating the Approach/Methods portion of a manuscript

Don’t hesitate to go read outside sources on how to conduct an experiment or how other labs use them. Don’t hesitate to (while still respecting the confidentiality of the manuscript) ask other people for help understanding methods in a general sense. You need to be confident in your assessment of whether the authors did the experiments correctly. If you’re not, tell the editor privately and request an additional expert to review that portion of the manuscript.

Keep in mind that you have every right to ask the authors do a different experiment, or to modify the way they carry out an existing one. Remember that doing so will take time, effort, and money, so don’t do this lightly. (And remember that under no circumstances should you even think of doing this in order to slow a lab down so that your project can be published first. That’s EXTREMELY unethical.).

3) Interpreting the research

Some questions to ask:

An approach to critically evaluating the Results/Interpretation/Discussion portion of a manuscript

An approach to critically evaluating the Results/Interpretation/Discussion portion of a manuscript

Absolutely feel free to ask for more results, or better ways of presenting them. If you believe that the data require the review of a statistical expert (or another kind of expert), recommend it to the editor. If you believe material in the Supplementary Online Information section would be more useful in the main body of the paper (or vice versa), recommend it!

4. Some final considerations
By this point, you will probably have read the entirety of the paper several times. Is the writing clear and free of grammatical errors? If not, request additional editing before publication (it isn’t necessarily your job to point out specific grammatical errors, though you are free to do so). Have the authors specified a mechanism by which they will make raw data from their experiments available? Have they specified how they will protect the identity of their human subjects (particularly a concern in genomics research)? Are there any additional ways in which the paper could be improved? Include these considerations in your write up to the editor.

5. Post-peer review: Among the scientific community, there has been a growing discussion about the importance of post-peer review—community commenting on aspects of a paper after it has been published—in order to focus assessment of scientific impact to be based more on the quality of the paper itself than the prestige of the journal in which it appeared. Post-peer review maintains that the publication of scientific findings is the beginning of their evaluation, not the end. Experimental replication and discussion of the study by the broader scientific community are also important components of the process. While several journals—such as Nature—have taken tentative steps to facilitate post-peer review by allowing comments on their own papers, a more useful approach is being undertaken by PubPeer, which allows any paper to be commented upon anonymously, and PubMed Commons, which allows any PubMed-indexed paper to be commented upon non-anonymously by PubMed-indexed authors.

Concluding thoughts
As you can see, reviewing can be a very difficult task, but you definitely will improve with practice! Journal clubs are an excellent way to improve your critical reading skills, as well as help from your mentor. Browsing the comments on articles in PeerJ, PubPeer and PubMed Commons will help you see how other scientists approach reviewing a paper. I’ve also found that the best way of improving my review abilities is to actually go through the process as an author. Remember that (minus the odd antagonistic person), referees are there to help you improve your work. Listen to and learn from them!

The scientific community demands a lot from our reviewers. Reviewing manuscripts may not give you obvious immediate benefits, but understand that doing so is a good way of keeping abreast of cutting edge research in your discipline. Going through the process makes you better at critical reading and thinking, and allows you to give back to your field in a very important way. I view it as a sort of civic obligation to the broader scientific community. Your contribution as a referee helps keep the scientific process as fair as possible.

Many thanks to Dr. Elizabeth Wager for her helpful thoughts and resources on this subject.

References and useful resources

Peer review: the nuts and bolts :  http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-the-nuts-and-bolts.html

Nature’s peer review debate: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/

Wager et al. 2002. “How to survive peer review” London: BMJ Book. http://www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/attachments/resources/2011/07/wager.pdf

Committee on publication ethics: Guidelines for Peer Reviewers by Irene Hames on behalf of COPE Council, March 2013, v. 1. http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf

COPE’s new Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers: background, issues, and evolution: http://www.ismte.org/Shared_Articles-COPEs_new_Ethical_Guidelines_for_Peer_Reviewers_background_issues_and_evolution

van Rooyen et al. 1999. Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 52(7) 625-629. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435699000475)

Nicholas, KA and Gordon, WS. 2011 “A Quick Guide to Writing a Solid Peer Review” EOS 92 (28): 233-240. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO280001/pdf)

Parberry, I. “A guide for new referees in theoretical computer science.” http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~dahlin/professional/parbery-referee.pdf

Moher D and Jadad AR. “How to peer review a manuscript” http://www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/attachments/resources/2011/07/moher.pdf

Nature’s checklist for authors: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/checklist.pdf

PRISMA’s resources for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: http://www.prisma-statement.org/

STROBE’s resources for epidemiology studies: http://www.strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=available-checklists

Nature Neuroscience’s guide for reviewers (http://www.nature.com/neuro/referees/index.html), and “Striving for excellence in peer review” (http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v12/n1/full/nn0109-1.html)

Petrovečki, M. The role of statistical reviewer in biomedical scientific journal. Biochemia Medica 2009;19(3):223-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2009.020

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/sep/27/peer-review-10-tips-research-paper

Gould, T. H. P. (2010). Scholar as e-publisher: The future role of [anonymous] peer review within online publishing. Retrieved from http://krex.ksu.edu

van Rooyen et al. 1999. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on
reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 318 pp 23-27

Wager et al.2006. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by
editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Medicine 2006, 4:13 (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/4/13)

Please feel free to suggest additional resources, or your thoughts on how to improve this post in the comments below, or by emailing me at jenniferraff (at) utexas (dot) edu. Thanks in advance!

About these ads

Jennifer Raff

Posts

Scientist, fighter, reader. In pursuit of the extraordinary.

67 responses to How to become good at peer review: A guide for young scientists

  1. 

    On avoiding gender bias against authors: simply try your best to blind yourself to the authors of the paper in review (i.e. don’t read their names, or at the very least don’t read their first names). The identity of the authors is irrelevant for reviewing anyway.

  2. 

    One piece of advise I found helpful was to remember that you are not an author. As a reviewer you aren’t editing the paper and comments shouldn’t be a way of warping the manuscript to how you would write it.

  3. 

    What are people’s thoughts on only reviewing open access papers. As this article indicates, reviewing is laborious and if you are going to review maybe it should be for papers that will have the widest reach. Any dissent?

    • 

      You raise a good point, and I have a friend who refuses to review for any journal that isn’t open access. I agree in principle…but in my field the majority of papers tend to get published in non open access journals. So if I refuse to review them, I may not get the chance to review any. Maybe that’s the ethical thing to do. I haven’t decided yet…

  4. 

    This is a great guide, and I especially like that you say it is an evolving one.You might also consider separating out assess of the importance or interest of the study from assessment of its scientific rigour. In the section on the Introduction you talk about “An unoriginal, uninteresting, or irrelevant study”. However, originality (novelty) can be objectively assessed, whereas relevance and interest are subjective. The reviewer’s subjective views are worth including in the report, but they should be clearly separated from objective assessment and labelled as opinions. The journal editor will then be able to compare these views with the journal’s criteria – and some journals explicitly don’t take significance into account (“megajournals “).(I have worked as a journal editor for several biology journals but am independent of any publisher.)

  5. 

    Thank you so much for these tips Jennifer! I’m an undergrad trying to look over My First Paper and these are really helpful.

    On peer review, the closest we get at UG is swapping the occasional essay to mark, but that’s just the bare basics of it :~s

    On point 6 – also I’ve read some of this special issue of Nature from 2006 including a couple papers on open peer review
    http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/

    The point you made about a reviewer trying to slow a lab down and publish first – I’d think that possibility would be somewhat enabled in anonymous peer review…

    The recent talk of postpublication peer review is quite an interesting idea.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/02/michael-eisen-wants-peer-review-comments-on-his-paper
    http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=694
    http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1472

    Unsure if this would deepen or alleviate gender biases… Trialling it and comparing stats is the only way to find out I guess. Do you know of any good resources on PPPR?

    Also what is the etiquette for typos, grammatical/spelling errors outside of peer review? I’ve seen AOP papers with these (sometimes it’s clear that the author’s not received sufficient help from a native speaker in proofreading) and I never know whether it’s a good idea to get in touch with the corresponding author before its publication. Is this always checked over before publication? There seems to be a fine line between appearing helpful and rude sometimes.

    What do you mean by uninteresting in 1) Intro/background ? Randy Schekman was criticised online recently for revealing that eLife would turn away papers on the same “sexiness” bias he accuses SNC of. It’s definitely got some place as an objective measure of value, what’re your thoughts?

    • 

      Thanks for commenting! I’m really glad you found this useful. Hopefully your program will give you more practice as you go along, but I think the majority of scientists don’t really start grappling with this until graduate school.

      Thanks for the links, I’ll check them out. Yes, anonymity has its downsides, but I don’t know how often there’s actually malicious intent going on (does anyone know of some stats on this?). My personal take on this is that I feel much freer to critique a paper if I know that there won’t be negative repercussions (conscious or unconscious) from the authors as a consequence. To me, that’s more important than (what I hope is) rare misconduct. But I can see a case for either side.

      As sharmanedit (above) pointed out, “uninteresting” is quite subjective. But sometimes it’s pretty obvious. For example, in my field, most of us probably wouldn’t consider a single ancient individual’s mitochondrial haplogroup to be worth an entire publication, unless it’s unusually informative or unique in some way (like a Neandertal).
      I don’t know if we can find an objective metric for “interestingness”, but if the majority of reviewers of a paper agree that it needs more “meat” to be published, then that’s a pretty good indication.

  6. 

    I’ve only ever seen 2-3 referees apparently delaying rivals’ papers, from a sample of 10K articles, and in only one instance was I sure that is what they were doing.

    • 

      I know I’ve seen it happen twice. In certain fields particular scientists have reputations for, or are rumored to, holding up papers. As an editor, I have had authors specifically request someone NOT to be a referee, with that given as the reason.

  7. 

    Hi, very nice post! A few points that might be helpful.

    An issue young researchers often raise with me is how to get appropriate credit for the reviewing they do with/for their group leaders and others. Some regularly carry out reviews for senior people without the journal ever knowing about their involvement, and the learning experience can extend into something rather different. I have heard of cases where over 20 reviews have been done for a PI, with a previous PI still sending on manuscripts! This is wrong in a number of ways. It’s important for young researchers to get their names into journal reviewer databases and be able to build reviewing records – they can then be asked to review in their own right, and also benefit from any ‘rewards’/acknowledgements journals give their reviewers. Journals also have to run a number of checks before having someone review so need to know everyone involved. Some young researchers don’t, however, know how to break what has become a rather abusive review cycle. This is one of the reasons we added the following to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (p3):

    “Peer reviewers should not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, including junior researchers they are mentoring, without first obtaining permission from the journal; the names of any individuals who have helped them with the review should be included with the returned review so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due credit for their efforts.”

    Young researchers can point to the COPE guidelines when needed. There’s also an article on the background to the evolution of the guidelines, including dealing with the involvement of junior researchers:

    http://www.ismte.org/Shared_Articles-COPEs_new_Ethical_Guidelines_for_Peer_Reviewers_background_issues_and_evolution

    Another useful resource – Sense About Science has produced a guide to peer review for early career researchers – Peer review: the nuts and bolts – http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-the-nuts-and-bolts.html .

    Increasing transparency is becoming important in peer review and a number of journals (eg the EMBO journals, BioMed Central medical journals, PeerJ, eLife) now publish the reviews (either anonymous or with reviewer names) alongside their articles (may also be editorial correspondence, manuscript versions, author responses, and other information). These provide a good opportunity for young researchers who haven’t published much/anything to see examples.

  8. 

    Thanks for your thoughtful article. Just a few reactions:
    Your time estimate seems at odds with some of your suggestions such as “doing a literature search on your own”, and reading the paper several times while taking copious notes. These are valid ideas, but likely to take more than the 8 hrs you suggest (in my experience). I myself try to read through once with out stopping to write notes, and at least once more while writing notes.
    You have several questions in your four areas that seem bit beyond the duty/purview of a reviewer. Under “Approach”, it’s not necessarily appropriate for the reviewer to judge wether the authors could or should have done their study a different way. Our lab uses a lot of sophisticated mass spectrometers to measure compounds in the atmosphere, but that doesn’t mean everyone must use those methods, which are expensive and not available to a lot of research groups. Suggesting that the authors do different or more experiments is also a gray area, as it may not be possible for them to do so. To some extent one has to stick with the work at hand as it is presented: does it make the scientific case that supports the authors conclusions or does it not. Remember that the editor has to go back to the authors with a tangible decision, not open ended suggestions.

    • 

      Thanks for your thoughts! I intended the lit search to be a suggestion for young scientists who may not (yet) be familiar with all the publications of their specialty. You’re probably right that it would exceed the ~8 hours I suggested, but that number is slightly arbitrary as it’s based off of just my own most recent reviewing experience. I think the time required of different referees would certainly vary wildly.

      You make a valid point about the purview of a referee. I think the extent to which experiments are suggested by reviewers may be a bit discipline-specific, but certainly if the authors are neglecting a crucial experiment or control to justify their results/interpretation, wouldn’t it be incumbent on the referees to point this out?

  9. 

    Thank you for this helpful post. I am recommending it to my graduate students in a course ” Proposal Design and Writing” because applying these lessons of peer review will improve their own writing.

  10. 

    This is an outstanding post for science students. Avoiding bias and lack of expertise are two factors reviewers of all ages and background should consider.

  11. 

    Being an engineering professional I have participated as peer reviewer in power plants. I am very impressed by your article on peer review titled “How to become good at peer review”.

  12. 

    Hi, I’m a student doing a project on peer review and I wondered what your opinion is on whether people should be paid to review papers? Thanks

  13. 

    I like the helpful info you provide in your articles. I’ll bookmark your weblog and check
    again here frequently. I’m quite sure I will learn many new stuff right here!
    Good luck for the next!

  14. 

    I loved as much as you will receive carried out right here.

    The sketch is tasteful, your authored material stylish.

    nonetheless, you command get bought an edginess over that
    you wish be delivering the following. unwell unquestionably come further formerly again as exactly the same nearly very often inside case you
    shield this increase.

  15. 

    Wow, that’s what I was exploring for, what a material! present
    here at this webpage, thanks admin of this web
    site.

  16. 

    Hello, just wanted to say, I enjoyed this article.
    It was helpful. Keep on posting!

  17. 

    Flexibility can be now the new mother of innovation and creativity.
    At American Climate Technologies, they take tremendous pride
    in their work and have a firm stance on building
    a happy and lasting relationship with each of their customers.
    Let us have a quick glance as to the progress in innovations made which
    has resulted in our enjoying the current day new launches.

  18. 

    They are mechanical sewing machine, electronic sewing machine, computerized sewing machine and overlocker sewing machines.
    Though, purchasing a Computer Sewing Machine is a costly affair.

    If you are buying singer sewing machine then you should bear
    some necessary factors in mind.

  19. 

    Hello! I’ve been reading your site for some time now and finally got the courage to go
    ahead and give you a shout out from Dallas Tx! Just wanted to mention keep up the good job!

  20. 

    Have you ever considered about including a little bit more than just your articles?
    I mean, what you say is fundamental and everything. However
    think about if you added some great pictures or videos to give your posts more,
    “pop”! Your content is excellent but with images and video clips,
    this blog could definitely be one of the best in its field.
    Excellent blog!

  21. 

    To assist those, caught in such a decision-making process, maybe an approach can rely upon a sports’ analogy used by coaches and athletes.
    Security is considered as one of the most important thing that is required by the people around the globe.
    The objective of a IP camera must figure out a
    sort you pick for buy.

  22. 

    Look at the scenario: Compensate memorable appreciation of the exact
    example, the growing season, the hands of time, and put in you could be putting them on.

    by:http://www.ferragamo-onsale.com

  23. 

    Last but not least showed up about the cabinets!
    PwnCheats is actually pleased to release the only real Web Jelly Dash Secrets.
    It is possible to come up with and also have an
    even better credit score next anyone else with this particular Jello Sprinkle Tips.

    Did you at any time receive caught up with a stage which often took
    all your lives aside? This kind of is not going to happen
    any longer as you can certainly renew your lifestyles
    without notice. Despite the fact that possess 1 lifestyle remaining, allow this amazing Jelly Dash Secrets creator create you some
    more. Find the maximum rating between your mates and also make it possible for these ask yourself
    as well as try out defeat ones higher credit score.
    You need much more practical knowledge to complete a straight?
    Not an issue with 3 mouse clicks you will be able to create more
    exp. The definition of an individual waiting for, The
    particular Jelly Sprinkle Gain a advantage will be waiting around that
    you can crank out.

  24. 

    Other normal accessories include elements designed for the comfort of the driver and
    passengers, such as heating, air conditioning, and radio, or for their safety, for instance,
    windshield wipers, headlights, etc. Courses are offered by
    the National Association of Elevator Contractors to earn a certificate as a Certified Elevator Technician.
    Sun Jul 15 – San Diego, CA – SDSU Open Air Theatre.

  25. 

    Unquestionably believe that which you said. Your favorite reason seemed to be on the web
    the easiest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed while people consider worries that they plainly don’t know about.

    You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out
    the whole thing without having side-effects , people can take a signal.
    Will likely be back to get more. Thanks

  26. 

    There is definately a great deal to learn about
    this topic. I really like all of the points you’ve
    made.

  27. 

    I’m really enjoying the design and layout of your site.

    It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more enjoyable for
    me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out
    a designer to create your theme? Superb work!

  28. 

    Normally I do not read post on blogs, but I would like to
    say that this write-up very forced me to take a look
    at and do it! Your writing taste has been surprised me. Thank
    you, quite nice article.

  29. 

    Woah! I’m really enjoying the template/theme of this site.
    It’s simple, yet effective. A lot of times it’s very
    hard to get that “perfect balance” between user friendliness and appearance.
    I must say you’ve done a superb job with this. Also, the blog loads super fast for me on Safari.
    Exceptional Blog!

  30. 

    Appreciation to my father who shared with me on the topic of this
    webpage, this webpage is in fact amazing.

  31. 

    Hey there! I’ve been reading your blog for a long time now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from New Caney Tx!
    Just wanted to mention keep up the great work!

  32. 

    This information is priceless. Where can I
    find out more?

  33. 

    I wanted to thank you for this fantastic read!!

    I absolutely enjoyed every little bit of it. I’ve got you bookmarked to check out new
    things you post…

  34. 

    The spring tension determines the springiness and elasticity
    of the rebounding surface. Elapsed time between events, 60 second, 60 minute and
    24-hour timers are useful for many purposes and found on many watches
    now. It is good advice to wear several layers of thinner clothing rather than just one thick one.

  35. 

    Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate
    you penning this post plus the rest of the site is also very good.

  36. 

    It takes a longer time to fade away and stays on the skin longer.
    * Tocopherol, which protects skin from external elements.
    There are serums available which are able to focus on your needs.

  37. 

    Hi! I know this is kinda off topic but I was wondering which
    blog platform are you using for this website? I’m getting fed up of WordPress because I’ve had problems with hackers and I’m looking at
    alternatives for another platform. I would be great if you could point me
    in the direction of a good platform.

  38. 

    Thank for the precious advices, I was wondering how to communicate in a constructive way to the authors that their work is inappropriate, lacks of interest, coherence even if they spent a bunch of time with useless and sophisticated characterizations…
    In other words, even if you do not penetrate every single notion present in the article you feel clearly that the manuscript has been conceived to fit with pre-set logic, arguments are tailored on the final scope of the work and so on…you know that because you are tempted to do the same in yours.
    Is there a good/fair way to tell that?

  39. 

    Quality posts is the important to interest the visitors to pay a
    quick visit the web site, that’s what this web site is providing.

  40. 

    Reblogged this on Deep thought and commented:
    How to become a good peer reviewer

  41. 

    Beneath their meek manners Ni-Kunnis women are just as smart and devious as their male counterparts.
    At first, Sarah was wearing a high school uniform while
    singing, but after a few minutes, she stripped down her clothes and flaunted her
    sexy body. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Dream – Works Studios has announced that filming will take place at London’s Pinewood Studios
    beginning on February 5th, 2007.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks:

  1. How to become good at peer review: A guide for ... - December 14, 2013

    […] Here are some important practices to keep in mind as you conduct the review:1. Expertise: Ask yourself honestly whether this paper falls within the scope of your expertise. If it falls too far outside of your discipline and knowledge, it’s better to leave the review to someone else. If you decline to review (for whatever reason), it’s courteous to recommend several alternate referees to the editor.2. Timeliness: It’s important that you make an effort to return a review within the specified deadline. People’s research careers may be depending on how quickly their papers are published. Take into consideration your schedule when you’re deciding whether to review a paper. If you’re a relatively young researcher, you may need to put in additional time in order to familiarize yourself with any background literature and methods that might be new to you. This isn’t a small thing, especially when balanced with all your other duties (coursework, teaching, research, writing). And keep in mind that complicated papers take more time to evaluate. For example, it took me about 8 or 10 hours (spread out over several days) to do my most recent review of a particular manuscript, and another 4 hours to review the revised version. If you don’t think you can commit enough time to the review in order to make the deadline, you should decline.3. Take it seriously:Peer review is at the heart of the scientific process, and in order for the process to work, the review must be rigorous. Don’t just sign off on a paper or do a slapdash job; read it critically (see my suggestions for how to do so below). Your review should ideally help the authors to improve the quality of their manuscript, and contribute to the overall quality of the journal.4. Avoid bias: Absolutely do not review a manuscript if you have a strong feeling (positive or negative) about any of the authors. Absolutely do not review a manuscript with any intention of reaping personal or professional benefit from it. Be aware that several studies have revealed implicit biases (such as gender bias) in peer review. Abstracts with female senior authors are systematically more poorly reviewed than abstracts with male senior authors (Knobloch-Westerwick et al. 2013), and “all articles with women in dominant author positions receive fewer citations than those with men in the same positions.” (Larivière et al. 2013)To avoid biases of all kinds, make a concerted, deliberate effort to always review the manuscript in front of you, not the authors.5. Don’t be intimidated: Remember that reviewing is a place where the implicit hierarchy of academia should not apply, ever. The authors of the manuscript might be the biggest names in the field, but that doesn’t automatically make them right.6. Review anonymously? There have been some calls in discussions of peer review for doing away with anonymity of referees, as anonymity is seen by some as facilitating bullying. In fact, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) requires all reviewers to be identified. In a study of the effect of open peer review on the quality of reviews, it was suggested that “if reviewers have to sign their reviews they may put more effort into their reviews and so produce better ones “, and also that “ open peer review should increase both the credit and accountability for peer reviewing, both of which seem desirable.” (van Rooyen et al. 1999). In contrast, this discussion in Nature Neuroscience recommended the continuation of anonymous review.As an early career scientist, I feel more comfortable critiquing my colleagues’ work anonymously. But I know several peers who have reached the opposite conclusion. Ultimately, the decision as to whether or not to sign your review is a completely personal one.7. Respect confidentiality: Don’t talk about the manuscript, its results, or its methods with outsiders. Don’t use information from the manuscript prior to its publication. Don’t communicate with the authors about their manuscript. All thoughts and comments on it should only go to the editor.  […]

  2. Recommend: How to become good at peer review: A guide for young scientists | Guru - December 15, 2013

    […] Instead, a young scientist may learn how to review a paper under the guidance of his or her mentor, How to become good at peer review: A guide for young scientists is a post to put together a set of guidelines for young […]

  3. How to become good at peer review: A guide for ... - December 18, 2013

    […] Peer review is at the heart of the scientific method. Its philosophy is based on the idea that one’s research must survive the scrutiny of experts before it is presented to the larger scientific co…  […]

  4. Weekend reads: How to be a good peer reviewer, the replication backlash | Retraction Watch - December 21, 2013

    […] How to become good at peer review: A guide for young scientists from Jennifer Raff […]

  5. How to become good at peer review: A guide for young scientists | Scientists Behaving Badly - December 21, 2013

    […] How to become good at peer review: A guide for young scientists. […]

  6. Two pieces of all too obvious propaganda | chorasimilarity - December 21, 2013

    […] 1: How to become good at peer review: A guide for young scientists by Violent methaphors.  The post starts by the […]

  7. December highlights from the world of scientific publishing | sharmanedit - January 7, 2014

    […] Raff, an Anthropology Research Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin, published “How to become good at peer review: A guide for young scientists“, a very useful and comprehensive guide that she intends to keep updated as she receives […]

  8. How to become good at peer review: A guide for young scientists | Danna Gifford - January 13, 2014

    […] How to become good at peer review: A guide for young scientists. […]

  9. Repost: How to peer review | Danna Gifford - January 13, 2014

    […] How to become good at peer review: A guide for young scientists. […]

  10. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear | An infinity of hypotheses - July 4, 2014

    […] http://violentmetaphors.com/2013/12/13/how-to-become-good-at-peer-review-a-guide-for-young-scientist… […]

  11. Publishing my first scientific paper | Science, sightseeing and sustenance - August 22, 2014

    […] also found this great piece on being a good reviewer, which I will definitely be when I get the chance to be on the other side of peer […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s