Instead, I include the following paragraph in my reports:. Scott Armstrong Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania for many years has studied and reviewed research on peer review.
In order to encourage innovation, he recommends that referees do not make a recommendation about acceptance or rejection, but only comment on papers and how they might be improved, leaving decisions to editors.
See, for example, J. Armstrong, 'Peer review for journals: evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation,' Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. I am persuaded by his arguments and hence make no formal recommendation about this paper.
If the editor wants to rely entirely on the referees' views, it is usually pretty easy to extract a recommendation from my comments. In the course of my studies of suppression of dissent, I have come across stories about anonymous review being used for unsavoury motives, such as blocking a competitor from prior publication or obstructing work for ideological reasons - or, sometimes, out of envy and vindictiveness.
I wanted to make sure that no one could accuse me of stabbing them in the back, so for a long time I have waived anonymity. A few journals invite referees to make confidential comments to the editor in addition to a report for the author.
I avoid making confidential comments, because this too is open to abuse. In my reports I include this sentence: 'As is my standard practice, I do not wish to be anonymous, and would be happy to correspond directly with the author s.
Finally, I'd like to give my appreciation to all the referees who have commented on my papers - yes, even the most critical referees.
There is a lot of work involved. But, surprisingly, there is very little training on how to be a good referee. Furthermore, referees seldom receive any feedback. Editors sometimes quietly drop nasty or incompetent referees, but otherwise there is little to promote change in the anonymous habits that can persist for a career.
Much more needs to be said publicly about how to write referee reports. Meanwhile, I prefer to err on the side of generosity. He has published more than a hundred refereed articles in the sciences and social sciences, had more than a hundred rejections, and been a referee for more than a hundred articles.
Brian Martin's publications on education. Brian Martin's publications. Be persistent! Show 4 more comments. Active Oldest Votes.
Improve this answer. Alexandre Eremenko Alexandre Eremenko Add a comment. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name. Email Required, but never shown. Featured on Meta.
Now live: A fully responsive profile. Linked Related They don't realize that the assumptions were there to focus the paper on the main point, and that noone cares about this generalization because noone takes the model that seriously. By this point you are in page 15, with references to 50 papers, mentions of 10 different topics and still they haven't even introduced the model.
After that they essentially assume their results, then rewrite them as propositions with complicated notation, and write "proofs" which are noting more than a lot of algebra. Gooded you because you are right to have those priors, for reasons you describe accurately for many papers.
All I'm saying is, be prepared to update your priors for that rare LRM paper that is much better than this. Surely 1 hour is enough to tell that something is possibly much better and deserves closer treatment.
If no such signal after 1 hour, fine, proceed as you say. I do spend that 1st hour reading respectfully, hoping to be pleasantly surprised. And a couple times, I have been. So all hope is not lost, chinabro -- if you write good papers and pitch them realistically. Economist 09f4. This is a fairly nauseating thread peopled by incompetents.
Moreover, numbers are not very informative, because different people interpret them differently: the text is the only opportunity you have to clearly communicate your reasons for liking or disliking a paper. Finally, there is one case where all of this goes out the window: if I find that I am dealing with a plagiarized or multiply submitted paper, then the authors are wasting everybody's time and I have no problem giving a short and harsh rejection, e.
Each reviewer has his or her own style. Some deliver a very brief report, others provide rather long lists of questions and suggestions. In general, you might not want to spend too much time writing a response if the paper is generally bad with evident blunders. If, instead, the paper is good but needs a number of amendments, you might be willing to write a detailed response giving advice on how to improve the paper.
Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. How detailed should one be in writing the referee's report? Ask Question. Asked 7 years ago. Active 3 years, 7 months ago. Viewed 3k times. Improve this question. See my answer to a similar question elsewhere. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. Improve this answer.
Kiro 1 1 silver badge 8 8 bronze badges. Peter Jansson Peter Jansson
0コメント