Skip to content. | Skip to navigation
Log in | find out more or join now.
- Site Map |
- Help |
- Accessibility |
- Contact
Supporting Developing Country Researchers in Publishing Their Work
Skip to content. | Skip to navigation
Log in | find out more or join now.
Supporting Developing Country Researchers in Publishing Their Work
By Bernard Appiah, 16 May 2012
By Barbara Gastel, 14 May 2012
By Barbara Gastel, 13 May 2012
By Bernard Appiah, 08 May 2012
By Barbara Gastel, 07 May 2012
By Barbara Gastel | 11 April 2010
Some Texas Wildflowers
Greetings again. Here in Texas, the spring wildflowers are blooming. Today we took some international students on a drive to see wildflowers.
Most of this weekend, however, I’m working. The work includes revising a manuscript, based on comments from peer reviewers.
Peer review—in which experts in one’s field evaluate manuscripts, grant proposals, or other items—is important. This week, Julie Walker at INASP mentioned a new resource on this topic.
This resource, “Peer Review: A Guide for Researchers”, was published by the Research Information Network, a policy unit in the United Kingdom. It includes an excellent flowchart showing the peer review process at journals.
I think that some common myths exist about peer review. Let me discuss 3 of them.
One myth is that the only purpose of peer review is to decide whether to accept an item. Actually, another important purpose is to obtain suggestions that will improve the item.
A second myth is that whether to publish a paper is just a vote of the peer reviewers. Actually, editors also consider other factors, such as the reasons given by the peer reviewers and the amount of space in the journal.
A third myth is that peer reviewers should focus only on weaknesses. Actually, reviewers also should mention strengths of the item they’re reviewing. This information helps editors, and it encourages authors.
I’m glad the peer reviewers said they liked my manuscript overall. Their encouragement helps motivate me to follow their suggestions.
Now, back to work!
Posted by Prof Gunasingham Mikunthan at 11 April 2010 01:49 PM
Hi Barbara,
Nice to see your comments and the myths on peer review. In fact it an essential tool to peer review some one manuscript in the relevant field that gives immense experience NOT just finding mistakes alone.
What is new in the subject dealt ? and Is it relevant to the Journal to be published. As you suggested the Peer Reviewers should comment on the positive aspects of the manuscript and should focus on their comments to improve the manuscript. The author should be satisfied with the manuscript has relevance and new information. Secondly the appropriateness of the methodology and the results obtained. Peer Reviewing should not ignore the citations of recent references in the manuscript. As I understand it is not the duty of the Peer Reviewer to correct ENGLISH alone. Some one suggests not to look after the grammar or English itself but should comment on the acceptance of scientific language. Peers are also requested to comment on the format of figures/tables and images as well. Its all the consistency of the manuscript with perfect format to be appeared in the reputed journals. In my experience peer reviewing will help to understand many mistakes we make often in preparing manuscript as well.
Your suggestions are valuable.
Peer review
Posted by Ruwan Gamage at 11 April 2010 04:40 AM
Hi Barbara, it's nice of you to take International students on site seeing.
I agree with you in your comments on PR. Peer reviewers also have a responsibility to enrich their response with valuable comments. Simply giving scores for those aspects mentioned by editor would help him/her decide whether to select the paper. The reason for giving a high/low score (for example, for Originality) is important for the author. I added this comment because this audience would also be/become PRs.