Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 17 Dec 2018 05:17:42 +0000 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|