Questions tagged [peer-review]

On the evaluation of work (typically, a publication or grant proposal) by the author's peers. This includes: refereeing, which is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication in a journal or conference; peer evaluation of teaching skills; peer review of research grant proposals; and post-publication review of a book or article, as is common in the field of mathematics.

In academia, peer review refers to the evaluation of work by the author's peers.

This includes, but is not limited to,

  • refereeing, which is often used determine an academic paper's suitability for publication in a journal or conference,
  • evaluation of research grant proposals by a group of experts to determine which will be funded,
  • peer evaluation of teaching skills,
  • post-publication review of a book or article, as is common in the field of mathematics.

Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility.

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal.

Note : This tag wiki has content adapted from Wikipedia, used under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license.

2379 questions
113
votes
10 answers

Editor rejected manuscript claiming it is similar to a not-yet-published manuscript (that I haven't seen). How to proceed?

A few months ago, I submitted a manuscript. After the reviews were completed I received a rejection decision from the Associate Editor (AE). The rejection was based on the basis of a single rejection recommendation by one of the four reviewers. The…
CTNT
  • 1,003
  • 2
  • 9
  • 13
99
votes
11 answers

Why is peer review so random?

8 Scientific Papers That Were Rejected Before Going on to Win a Nobel Prize Funding Analysis: Researchers Say NIH Grant Funding Allocation Seems No Better Than Lottery The same paper resubmitted to the same journal after several years often ends up…
Allure
  • 127,528
  • 50
  • 325
  • 493
64
votes
4 answers

What to do when I can prove a conjecture of a paper I'm peer reviewing

I was given a paper to peer review. A result of that paper has been obtained with some extrapolation trick and so they present it as highly plausible conjecture. It turns out that me and another collaborator computed the exact same thing (for other…
BlueElephant
  • 1,630
  • 8
  • 16
60
votes
7 answers

Results that are too good to be true - peer review

So, I'm reviewing a medical study (open-label trial) that compares the efficacy of different drug doses on a patient population (heart failure). The study is arguably of low-quality, compared to the landmark trials that established the benefit of…
59
votes
9 answers

What prevents reviewers from providing biased and very negative reviews?

One of the fundamental features of science, maybe even the most important, is that publication of scientific results is peer-reviewed. I want to understand why peer review is effective in the scientific community, because I want to apply principles…
algorithmic_fungus
  • 3,791
  • 15
  • 24
57
votes
2 answers

A journal editor has pretended my referee report actually came from two separate referees

I have encountered another weird situation as a referee. A couple of months ago, I submitted a referee report for an article, asking for major revisions. (This is theoretical physics, in which getting only a single referee report for published…
Buzz
  • 20,428
  • 14
  • 67
  • 99
55
votes
5 answers

How do people peer-review many papers?

I am an Assistant Professor of Chemistry. I try to be an active peer-reviewer but on average it takes a few hours to review a manuscript (reading, some searches in the literature, checking some relevant reference, and finally writing the report). I…
user83205
  • 541
  • 4
  • 4
54
votes
10 answers

I have been asked to change the review I gave to a paper

I rejected a paper after careful review and consideration, writing six pages to justify my decision. In less than 24 h I have received a petition to change my verdict to major changes. The rationale is that the other two reviewers have given major…
BqKaXeu29y
  • 675
  • 1
  • 5
  • 5
52
votes
3 answers

When refereeing a paper, stating I am not an author of suggested literature

When getting reports for papers submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, referees sometimes suggest that some missing items be added to the list of references. In my short career I have seen all possible cases, from honest additions that were clearly…
Miguel
  • 7,867
  • 3
  • 38
  • 66
52
votes
7 answers

How detailed should my review of a very poorly-written manuscript be?

My question has to do with whether my responsibilities as a reviewer also includes copyediting duties. I am in the midst of reviewing a manuscript for a mid-tier applied health sciences journal. While the topic is potentially important, the…
marquisdecarabas
  • 807
  • 1
  • 8
  • 12
49
votes
2 answers

Responding to a reviewer who misunderstood key concepts of a paper

How do you respond to a reviewer who is very critical about your paper but from whose comments you can easily see that he/she has misunderstood the key concepts of the paper? In my case, the first reviewer had no issues with the paper and suggested…
Prometheus
  • 1,822
  • 2
  • 17
  • 16
45
votes
2 answers

As a reviewer, is it inappropriate to make unsolicited comments on another reviewer's comments?

I'm reviewing a paper after minor revisions, and can partially see another reviewer's comments in the response letter. The other reviewer asks the authors to do X, but the authors argue that it's not worthwhile doing X. I've done things like X…
Rebecca J. Stones
  • 9,941
  • 6
  • 44
  • 49
44
votes
5 answers

How to react to a reviewer’s comment when he is completely right, but you do not like the consequences?

One of the reviewers of my conference paper (computer science), which got a revise & resubmit, criticized that my conclusions are not well founded in my experiment and that they don’t show my hypothesis. (In detail, there was no control variable,…
user2212461
  • 1,631
  • 1
  • 15
  • 15
42
votes
1 answer

Responding to an unambiguously wrong referee comment

I'm now replying to a referee. One of his points is unambiguously wrong. Moreover, without going into specifics, he spends a lot of time on that point and asks us to do something with our framework that it cannot address. This is not stubbornness on…
peter
  • 321
  • 3
  • 4
40
votes
3 answers

Is it accepted/common to answer factually inaccurate reviewer comments in case of rejection?

I recently got a paper rejected. I do not plan on appealing, I definitely see that some elements of the paper need improvements. Nevertheless, some of the comments from one reviewer are factually inaccurate. For example, I cite Paper A, where claim…
Federico
  • 789
  • 8
  • 19
1
2 3
19 20