I Have Reviewed the Paper That It Looks Good

A good peer review requires disciplinary expertise, a keen and critical middle, and a diplomatic and constructive arroyo. Credit: dmark/iStockphoto

As junior scientists develop their expertise and brand names for themselves, they are increasingly probable to receive invitations to review inquiry manuscripts. It's an important skill and service to the scientific community, but the learning curve can exist especially steep. Writing a good review requires expertise in the field, an intimate knowledge of enquiry methods, a critical listen, the power to give fair and constructive feedback, and sensitivity to the feelings of authors on the receiving end. Every bit a range of institutions and organizations around the world gloat the essential role of peer review in upholding the quality of published research this calendar week, Science Careers shares collected insights and advice most how to review papers from researchers across the spectrum. The responses accept been edited for clarity and brevity.

What practise you consider when deciding whether to have an invitation to review a paper?

I consider four factors: whether I'thousand sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic to offer an intelligent assessment, how interesting I find the enquiry topic, whether I'chiliad free of any conflict of interest, and whether I have the time. If the reply to all four questions is yes, then I'll commonly hold to review.
- Chris Chambers , professor of cognitive neuroscience at Cardiff University in the Britain

I am very open-minded when it comes to accepting invitations to review. I see it every bit a tit-for-tat duty: Since I am an active researcher and I submit papers, hoping for actually helpful, constructive comments, it just makes sense that I do the same for others. So accepting an invitation for me is the default, unless a paper is really far from my expertise or my workload doesn't allow it. The only other factor I pay attending to is the scientific integrity of the journal. I would non want to review for a periodical that does not offering an unbiased review process.
- Eva Selenko , senior lecturer in piece of work psychology at Loughborough University in the United Kingdom

I'k more decumbent to agree to exercise a review if it involves a system or method in which I have a particular expertise. And I'm not going to have on a paper to review unless I have the time. For every manuscript of my own that I submit to a journal, I review at least a few papers, so I requite back to the system plenty. I've heard from some reviewers that they're more than probable to have an invitation to review from a more prestigious journal and don't feel equally bad about rejecting invitations from more than specialized journals. That makes things a lot harder for editors of the less prestigious journals, and that'southward why I am more than inclined to take on reviews from them. If I've never heard of the authors, and particularly if they're from a less developed nation, then I'one thousand also more likely to accept the invitation. I practise this because editors might accept a harder fourth dimension landing reviewers for these papers too, and because people who aren't securely connected into our research community too deserve quality feedback. Finally, I am more than inclined to review for journals with double-blind reviewing practices and journals that are run past academic societies, considering those are both things that I desire to back up and encourage.
- Terry McGlynn , professor of biological science at California State Academy, Dominguez Hills

I usually consider first the relevance to my ain expertise. I will plow downwards requests if the paper is too far removed from my own inquiry areas, since I may not exist able to provide an informed review. Having said that, I tend to define my expertise adequately broadly for reviewing purposes. I also consider the periodical. I am more willing to review for journals that I read or publish in. Before I became an editor, I used to be fairly eclectic in the journals I reviewed for, but now I tend to be more discerning, since my editing duties take upwards much of my reviewing fourth dimension.
- John P. Walsh , professor of public policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta

Once you've agreed to consummate a review, how exercise you arroyo the paper?

Unless it's for a journal I know well, the kickoff thing I practise is check what format the journal prefers the review to be in. Some journals accept structured review criteria; others but ask for general and specific comments. Knowing this in advance helps relieve time later on.

I near never print out papers for review; I prefer to piece of work with the electronic version. I ever read the newspaper sequentially, from start to stop, making comments on the PDF as I keep. I await for specific indicators of research quality, asking myself questions such as: Are the background literature and study rationale clearly articulated? Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous work? Are the methods robust and well controlled? Are the reported analyses appropriate? (I usually pay close attention to the use—and misuse—of frequentist statistics.) Is the presentation of results clear and attainable? To what extent does the Word place the findings in a wider context and reach a balance between estimation and useful speculation versus boring waffling?
- Chambers

I subconsciously follow a checklist. First, is it well written? That normally becomes apparent by the Methods department. (Then, throughout, if what I am reading is merely partly comprehensible, I practise not spend a lot of energy trying to make sense of it, but in my review I will relay the ambiguities to the author.) I should also accept a practiced idea of the hypothesis and context inside the showtime few pages, and it matters whether the hypothesis makes sense or is interesting. Then I read the Methods section very advisedly. I practice non focus and then much on the statistics—a quality journal should have professional statistics review for any accepted manuscript—but I consider all the other logistics of study design where it'southward like shooting fish in a barrel to hide a fatal flaw. Mostly I am concerned with credibility: Could this methodology have answered their question? And so I look at how convincing the results are and how careful the description is. Sloppiness anywhere makes me worry. The parts of the Discussion I focus on near are context and whether the authors brand claims that overreach the data. This is done all the time, to varying degrees. I desire statements of fact, not opinion or speculation, backed upwards by data.
- Michael Callaham , emergency intendance physician and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco

Virtually journals don't have special instructions, so I but read the paper, usually starting with the Abstruse, looking at the figures, and so reading the paper in a linear fashion. I read the digital version with an open word processing file, keeping a listing of "major items" and "minor items" and making notes every bit I go. In that location are a few aspects that I make sure to accost, though I comprehend a lot more than ground as well. Start, I consider how the question being addressed fits into the current status of our cognition. Second, I ponder how well the work that was conducted actually addresses the central question posed in the paper. (In my field, authors are under pressure level to broadly sell their work, and it's my job as a reviewer to address the validity of such claims.) 3rd, I make certain that the pattern of the methods and analyses are appropriate.
- McGlynn

Beginning, I read a printed version to become an overall impression. What is the paper near? How is information technology structured? I also pay attention to the schemes and figures; if they are well designed and organized, and then in about cases the entire newspaper has too been advisedly idea out.

When diving in deeper, first I try to appraise whether all the important papers are cited in the references, every bit that also often correlates with the quality of the manuscript itself. And then, correct in the Introduction, y'all can often recognize whether the authors considered the full context of their topic. Later that, I check whether all the experiments and data brand sense, paying particular attention to whether the authors advisedly designed and performed the experiments and whether they analyzed and interpreted the results in a comprehensible manner. It is also very of import that the authors guide you through the whole article and explain every table, every figure, and every scheme.

As I continue, I employ a highlighter and other pens, then the manuscript is usually colorful after I read it. Besides that, I make notes on an extra sail.
- Melanie Kim Müller , doctoral candidate in organic chemistry at the Technical Academy of Kaiserslautern in Germany

I showtime familiarize myself with the manuscript and read relevant snippets of the literature to make certain that the manuscript is coherent with the larger scientific domain. And then I scrutinize it department past section, noting if at that place are any missing links in the story and if certain points are under- or overrepresented. I also scout for inconsistencies in the portrayal of facts and observations, assess whether the exact technical specifications of the report materials and equipment are described, consider the adequacy of the sample size and the quality of the figures, and appraise whether the findings in the main manuscript are aptly supplemented by the supplementary section and whether the authors have followed the periodical's submission guidelines.
- Chaitanya Giri , postdoctoral inquiry fellow at the Globe-Life Science Found in Tokyo

I print out the paper, every bit I find it easier to make comments on the printed pages than on an electronic reader. I read the manuscript very advisedly the first fourth dimension, trying to follow the authors' argument and predict what the next step could exist. At this first stage, I try to exist equally open-minded every bit I tin. I don't take a formalized checklist, but in that location are a number of questions that I more often than not use. Does the theoretical statement make sense? Does it contribute to our noesis, or is it old wine in new bottles? Is at that place an angle the authors have overlooked? This ofttimes requires doing some background reading, sometimes including some of the cited literature, about the theory presented in the manuscript.

I then delve into the Methods and Results sections. Are the methods suitable to investigate the research question and exam the hypotheses? Would there accept been a better fashion to test these hypotheses or to analyze these results? Is the statistical analysis sound and justified? Could I replicate the results using the information in the Methods and the clarification of the analysis? I even selectively cheque individual numbers to meet whether they are statistically plausible. I also carefully look at the caption of the results and whether the conclusions the authors depict are justified and connected with the broader argument made in the paper. If there are any aspects of the manuscript that I am not familiar with, I endeavor to read up on those topics or consult other colleagues.
- Selenko

I spend a fair amount of time looking at the figures. In improver to considering their overall quality, sometimes figures raise questions about the methods used to collect or analyze the data, or they fail to support a finding reported in the paper and warrant further description. I too want to know whether the authors' conclusions are adequately supported by the results. Conclusions that are overstated or out of sync with the findings will adversely impact my review and recommendations.
- Dana Boatman-Reich , professor of neurology and otolaryngology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland

I generally read on the computer and start with the Abstract to get an initial impression. So I read the paper as a whole, thoroughly and from beginning to end, taking notes as I read. For me, the first question is this: Is the enquiry sound? And secondly, how can it be improved? Basically, I am looking to see if the research question is well motivated; if the data are sound; if the analyses are technically correct; and, most importantly, if the findings back up the claims made in the newspaper.
- Walsh

The main aspects I consider are the novelty of the commodity and its impact on the field. I e'er enquire myself what makes this paper relevant and what new advance or contribution the paper represents. And so I follow a routine that will help me evaluate this. Commencement, I check the authors' publication records in PubMed to become a feel for their expertise in the field. I also consider whether the article contains a good Introduction and description of the state of the art, as that indirectly shows whether the authors take a practiced knowledge of the field. Second, I pay attention to the results and whether they have been compared with other similar published studies. Third, I consider whether the results or the proposed methodology have some potential broader applicability or relevance, because in my opinion this is important. Finally, I evaluate whether the methodology used is appropriate. If the authors have presented a new tool or software, I will examination it in particular.
- Fátima Al-Shahrour , caput of the Translational Bioinformatics Unit of measurement in the clinical enquiry program at the Castilian National Cancer Research Centre in Madrid

How do you get about drafting the review? Practise you sign information technology?

Using a re-create of the manuscript that I first marked up with whatsoever questions that I had, I write a brief summary of what the paper is about and what I feel about its solidity. Then I run through the specific points I raised in my summary in more particular, in the order they appeared in the paper, providing page and paragraph numbers for most. Finally comes a list of really small stuff, which I try to keep to a minimum. I then typically go through my first draft looking at the marked-up manuscript once more to brand sure I didn't leave out anything important. If I feel there is some practiced material in the paper only it needs a lot of piece of work, I volition write a pretty long and specific review pointing out what the authors need to do. If the paper has horrendous difficulties or a dislocated concept, I will specify that just will non do a lot of work to try to advise fixes for every flaw.

I never use value judgments or value-laden adjectives. Nada is "lousy" or "stupid," and nobody is "incompetent." Nonetheless, every bit an writer your data might be incomplete, or you may have overlooked a huge contradiction in your results, or y'all may accept made major errors in the study blueprint. That's what I communicate, with a way to fix it if a feasible ane comes to heed. Hopefully, this volition be used to make the manuscript better rather than to shame anyone. Overall, I want to attain an evaluation of the study that is fair, objective, and consummate enough to convince both the editor and the authors that I know something about what I'k talking near. I also endeavor to cite a specific factual reason or some bear witness for any major criticisms or suggestions that I make. After all, fifty-fifty though you lot were selected equally an adept, for each review the editor has to make up one's mind how much they believe in your assessment.
- Callaham

I apply annotations that I made in the PDF to start writing my review; that manner I never forget to mention something that occurred to me while reading the paper. Unless the journal uses a structured review format, I usually brainstorm my review with a general statement of my agreement of the newspaper and what information technology claims, followed by a paragraph offering an overall assessment. So I brand specific comments on each section, listing the major questions or concerns. Depending on how much fourth dimension I have, I sometimes also cease with a section of pocket-size comments. I may, for example, highlight an obvious typo or grammatical fault, though I don't pay a lot of attention to these, as information technology is the authors' and copyeditors' responsibility to ensure clear writing.

I try to be every bit constructive as possible. A review is primarily for the benefit of the editor, to aid them reach a decision about whether to publish or not, but I try to make my reviews useful for the authors as well. I ever write my reviews as though I am talking to the scientists in person. I endeavour hard to avoid rude or disparaging remarks. The review process is brutal enough scientifically without reviewers making information technology worse.

Since obtaining tenure, I always sign my reviews. I believe it improves the transparency of the review process, and it also helps me police the quality of my own assessments by making me personally accountable.
- Chambers

I want to assist the authors improve their manuscript and to aid the editor in the decision process past providing a neutral and balanced review of the manuscript'south strengths and weaknesses and how to potentially improve it. After I take finished reading the manuscript, I permit it sink in for a day or so and then I attempt to make up one's mind which aspects really matter. This helps me to distinguish between major and pocket-size problems and also to group them thematically as I draft my review. My reviews unremarkably start out with a short summary and a highlight of the strengths of the manuscript before briefly listing the weaknesses that I believe should exist addressed. I try to link any criticism I have either to a folio number or a quotation from the manuscript to ensure that my argument is understood. I also selectively refer to others' work or statistical tests to substantiate why I recollect something should be washed differently.

I attempt to be constructive by suggesting ways to improve the problematic aspects, if that is possible, and likewise try to hitting a at-home and friendly merely also neutral and objective tone. This is not always like shooting fish in a barrel, especially if I discover what I remember is a serious flaw in the manuscript. Withal, I know that being on the receiving end of a review is quite stressful, and a critique of something that is close to one's heart can easily exist perceived as unjust. I try to write my reviews in a tone and grade that I could put my proper noun to, even though reviews in my field are usually double-blind and not signed.
- Selenko

I'g aiming to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the quality of the newspaper that volition be of employ to both the editor and the authors. I call up a lot of reviewers approach a paper with the philosophy that they are in that location to identify flaws. Merely I only mention flaws if they affair, and I will make sure the review is constructive. If I'chiliad pointing out a problem or concern, I substantiate it enough so that the authors tin can't say, "Well, that's not correct" or "That'southward not fair." I piece of work to be conversational and factual, and I clearly distinguish statements of fact from my own opinions.

I used to sign near of my reviews, but I don't do that anymore. If yous make a practice of signing reviews, then over the years, many of your colleagues will have received reviews with your name on them. Even if you are focused on writing quality reviews and existence fair and collegial, information technology'due south inevitable that some colleagues volition be less than appreciative nigh the content of the reviews. And if you identify a paper that you think has a substantial error that is non easily fixed, then the authors of this paper will find information technology hard to not hold a grudge. I've known besides many junior scientists who have been burned from signing their reviews early on in their careers. Then now, I but sign my reviews so as to be fully transparent on the rare occasions when I suggest that the authors cite papers of mine, which I just do when my piece of work will remedy factual errors or correct the claim that something has never been addressed before.
- McGlynn

My review begins with a paragraph summarizing the paper. Then I take bullet points for major comments and for minor comments. Major comments may include suggesting a missing command that could make or break the authors' conclusions or an important experiment that would help the story, though I try not to recommend extremely difficult experiments that would be beyond the scope of the paper or take forever. Minor comments may include flagging the mislabeling of a figure in the text or a misspelling that changes the meaning of a common term. Overall, I try to make comments that would make the newspaper stronger. My tone is very formal, scientific, and in tertiary person. I'1000 critiquing the work, not the authors. If there is a major flaw or business organisation, I endeavor to exist honest and dorsum it up with evidence.
- Sara Wong , doctoral candidate in cellular and molecular biological science at the Academy of Michigan, Ann Arbor

I start by making a bullet point listing of the main strengths and weaknesses of the paper and so flesh out the review with details. I often refer back to my annotated version of the online paper. I commonly differentiate betwixt major and small criticisms and word them as straight and concisely as possible. When I recommend revisions, I try to give articulate, detailed feedback to guide the authors. Even if a manuscript is rejected for publication, most authors tin do good from suggestions. I endeavour to stick to the facts, so my writing tone tends toward neutral. Earlier submitting a review, I ask myself whether I would be comfortable if my identity as a reviewer was known to the authors. Passing this "identity test" helps ensure that my review is sufficiently counterbalanced and fair.
- Boatman-Reich

My reviews tend to take the form of a summary of the arguments in the paper, followed past a summary of my reactions and and then a serial of the specific points that I wanted to heighten. Generally, I am trying to place the authors' claims in the paper that I did not find disarming and guide them to ways that these points tin can be strengthened (or, perchance, dropped as beyond the scope of what this study tin can support). If I find the paper particularly interesting (and even if I am going to recommend rejection), I tend to give a more detailed review because I desire to encourage the authors to develop the paper (or, possibly, to do a new newspaper along the lines suggested in the review). My tone is one of trying to be constructive and helpful even though, of course, the authors might not hold with that label.
- Walsh

I try to deed as a neutral, curious reader who wants to understand every particular. If there are things I struggle with, I will propose that the authors revise parts of their paper to get in more than solid or broadly accessible. I want to requite them honest feedback of the same blazon that I hope to receive when I submit a paper.
- Müller

I starting time with a brief summary of the results and conclusions every bit a way to evidence that I accept understood the paper and take a full general opinion. I always comment on the form of the paper, highlighting whether it is well written, has correct grammar, and follows a right structure. Then, I separate the review in two sections with bullet points, offset listing the most critical aspects that the authors must address to better demonstrate the quality and novelty of the newspaper so more minor points such every bit misspelling and figure format. When yous deliver criticism, your comments should exist honest but always respectful and accompanied with suggestions to amend the manuscript.
- Al-Shahrour

When, and how, practice y'all decide on your recommendation?

I make a decision afterward drafting my review. I usually sit down on the review for a day and and so reread it to be sure it is counterbalanced and fair before deciding anything.
- Boatman-Reich

I unremarkably don't determine on a recommendation until I've read the unabridged newspaper, although for poor quality papers, information technology isn't ever necessary to read everything.
- Chambers

I only make a recommendation to take, revise, or refuse if the periodical specifically requests one. The decision is fabricated by the editor, and my job as a reviewer is to provide a nuanced and detailed report on the paper to support the editor.
- McGlynn

The decision comes forth during reading and making notes. If there are serious mistakes or missing parts, then I do not recommend publication. I usually write down all the things that I noticed, expert and bad, so my decision does not influence the content and length of my review.
- Müller

In my experience, virtually papers get through several rounds of revisions earlier I would recommend them for publication. Mostly, if I tin can see originality and novelty in a manuscript and the written report was carried out in a solid way, then I requite a recommendation for "revise and resubmit," highlighting the demand for the analysis strategy, for example, to be further developed. However, if the mechanism being tested does non actually provide new knowledge, or if the method and study design are of insufficient quality, then my hopes for a manuscript are rather low. The length and content of my reviews generally exercise not relate to the effect of my decisions. I unremarkably write rather lengthy reviews at the kickoff circular of the revision procedure, and these tend to become shorter as the manuscript then improves in quality.
- Selenko

Publication is not a binary recommendation. The fact that just 5% of a journal'due south readers might ever expect at a paper, for example, can't be used as criteria for rejection, if in fact it is a seminal paper that will touch on that field. And we never know what findings will corporeality to in a few years; many quantum studies were non recognized equally such for many years. Then I can only rate what priority I believe the paper should receive for publication today.
- Callaham

If the research presented in the paper has serious flaws, I am inclined to recommend rejection, unless the shortcoming can be remedied with a reasonable amount of revising. Likewise, I take the point of view that if the author cannot convincingly explain her report and findings to an informed reader, then the newspaper has not met the burden for acceptance in the journal.
- Walsh

My recommendations are inversely proportional to the length of my reviews. Brusque reviews interpret into strong recommendations and vice versa.
- Giri

How long does it take you to review a paper?

This varies widely, from a few minutes if there is clearly a major trouble with the newspaper to half a solar day if the newspaper is really interesting but at that place are aspects that I don't understand. Occasionally, there are difficulties with a potentially publishable article that I call back I can't properly assess in half a day, in which case I volition return the paper to the periodical with an explanation and a suggestion for an expert who might be closer to that aspect of the research.
- Nicola Spaldin , professor of materials theory at the Swiss Federal Establish of Applied science in Zurich

It usually takes me a few hours.  Most of the fourth dimension is spent closely reading the paper and taking notes. One time I take the notes, writing the review itself generally takes less than an hour.
- Walsh

Information technology can take me quite a long time to write a good review, sometimes a full day of piece of work and sometimes even longer. The detailed reading and the sense-making procedure, in particular, takes a long fourth dimension. Also, sometimes I notice that something is not quite right simply can't quite put my finger on it until I have properly digested the manuscript.
- Selenko

A few hours. I similar to use ii sittings, even when I am pretty sure of my conclusions. Waiting another solar day always seems to improve the review.
- Callaham

Usually, a peer review takes me ane or two days, including reading the supporting data.
- Müller

I near always do information technology in one sitting, anything from 1 to 5 hours depending on the length of the newspaper.
- Chambers

In my feel, the submission borderline for reviews ordinarily ranges between 3 working days to upwardly to 3 weeks. Every bit a rule of thumb, I roughly devote twenty% of my reviewing fourth dimension to a first, overall-impression browsing of the newspaper; 40% to a 2nd reading that includes writing up suggestions and comments; thirty% to a third reading that includes checking the compliance of the authors to the journal guidelines and the proper utilise of subject-typical jargon; and 10% to the last goof-proof browsing of my review. Altogether, it usually takes me more a day.
- Giri

What further advice do yous have for researchers who are new to the peer-review process?

Many reviewers are not polite enough. Information technology's OK for a paper to say something that you don't agree with. Sometimes I will say in a review something like, "I disagree with the authors about this interpretation, but it is scientifically valid and an advisable use of periodical space for them to make this argument." If yous have whatever questions during the review process, don't hesitate to contact the editor who asked you to review the paper. As well, if you don't accept a review invitation, give her a few names for suggested reviewers, peculiarly senior Ph.D. students and postdocs. In my experience, they are unlikely to write a poor quality review; they might be more likely to accept the invitation, as senior scientists are typically overwhelmed with review requests; and the opportunity to review a manuscript tin assist back up their professional development.
- McGlynn

The paper reviewing process can assist you grade your own scientific stance and develop critical thinking skills. It will as well provide you with an overview of the new advances in the field and help y'all when writing and submitting your own manufactures. Then although peer reviewing definitely takes some effort, in the end it will be worth information technology. Also, the journal has invited you to review an article based on your expertise, but in that location volition be many things you don't know. And then if yous take non fully understood something in the paper, do not hesitate to ask for clarification. It will assist you make the right decision.

- Al-Shahrour

Remember that a review is not about whether one likes a certain work, only whether the research is valid and tells us something new. Another common mistake is writing an unfocused review that is lost in the details. You can meliorate highlight the major bug that need to be dealt with by restructuring the review, summarizing the important problems upfront, or calculation asterisks. I would really encourage other scientists to accept up peer-review opportunities whenever possible. Reviewing is a great learning experience and an exciting thing to practise. 1 gets to know super fresh research firsthand and gain insight into other authors' argument structure. I also call up it is our duty as researchers to write good reviews. After all, we are all in it together. The soundness of the entire peer-review procedure depends on the quality of the reviews that nosotros write.
- Selenko

As a junior researcher, it may feel a picayune weird or daunting to critique someone'south completed work. Just pretend that it's your own research and figure out what experiments you would do and how you would interpret the data.
- Wong

Bear in mind that i of the most dangerous traps a reviewer tin fall into is declining to recognize and admit their own bias. To me, it is biased to attain a verdict on a paper based on how groundbreaking or novel the results are, for example. Such judgments have no place in the assessment of scientific quality, and they encourage publication bias from journals as well as bad practices from authors to produce attractive results by cherry picking. Also, I wouldn't suggest early on-career researchers to sign their reviews, at least non until they either have a permanent position or otherwise feel stable in their careers. Although I believe that all established professors should exist required to sign, the fact is that some authors tin can hold grudges against reviewers. Nosotros like to think of scientists every bit objective truth-seekers, but we are all too human and academia is intensely political, and a powerful author who receives a disquisitional review from a more inferior scientist could exist in a position to exercise dandy harm to the reviewer's career prospects.
- Chambers

It is necessary to maintain decorum: One should review the paper justly and entirely on its merit, even if it comes from a competing enquiry group. Finally, there are occasions where you go extremely exciting papers that you might exist tempted to share with your colleagues, but you take to resist the urge and maintain strict confidentiality.
- Giri

At least early on, it is a good idea to be open to review invitations so that yous can come across what unfinished papers look like and get familiar with the review process. Many journals transport the decision letters to the reviewers. Reading these can give y'all insights into how the other reviewers viewed the paper, and into how editors evaluate reviews and make decisions well-nigh rejection versus acceptance or revise and resubmit.
- Walsh

At the showtime of my career, I wasted quite a lot of energy feeling guilty almost being behind in my reviewing. New requests and reminders from editors kept piling up at a faster rate than I could complete the reviews and the trouble seemed intractable. I solved information technology past making the conclusion to review i journal commodity per week, putting a slot in my calendar for information technology, and promptly declining subsequent requests afterward the weekly slot is filled—or offer the next available opening to the editor. And now I am in the happy situation of only experiencing late-review guilt on Friday afternoons, when I all the same have some time ahead of me to complete the week's review.
- Spaldin

collinssuposincer.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/how-review-paper

Share this post