BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jerry Bromenshenk <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 05:17:42 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
Gene writes:

>Off on the sidelines I have watched my wife disquieting mood when she is subject to peer review and the time and energy required to do a rewrite. Also taking on the role as one who does a peer review is likewise very time consuming and at least for my wife required a lot of checking references and making recommendation to the author that were constructive but not too harsh.<

NSF has been working to re-define the instructions to reviewers in order to try to reduce the time required of reviewers (who are not paid).  Last month's review guidelines included a statement that implied that the agency hoped the new guidelines would reduce a reviewer's time to less than 5 hrs, maybe only 3!

If one is assessing a review paper with a hundred or more citations, the task can get to be onerous; especially if the authors are careless about spellings, dates, typos, etc.  Word Processors don't do a good job of checking citations, and citation formats change from journal to journal.

As per constructive comments, it at times takes real effort, especially when authors over-state titles, rationales.  I've gotten to hate these phrases in article submissions:  "Save the Bee!"  "Field-Realistic Doses"  "Cure CCD" "Causes CCD"  ; they might as well just say:  "Send Money!!"  

Obviously Gene, your wife knows all too well what true peer-review entails, and the responsibility of reviewers.  

One of the tell-tales of a review by some just minted Ph.D.'s is one in which the reviewer sets out to prove just how much more he/she knows than the author(s), presented in a pejorative manner.  The idea that reviewers are expected to be helpful is lost upon them.  They're out to impress.  A tip-off is that those new to the exercise tend to use every multi-syllable word in their vocabulary. 

That's different than turf protection which is most obvious when a reviewer focuses on a specific part, especially a statement or argument, in the article or proposal and then sets out to thoroughly shred it.

In both cases, a good editor will act as a moderator.  Most science editors and panel moderators take their job seriously, a few just pass the reviews along with no comment.




             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2