Examples of bad peer review and why it is damaging to researchers

Peer review prior to acceptance and publication can make a substantial contribution to 바카라사이트 development of research, and reviewer comments can help identify gaps in 바카라사이트 literature cited, shortcomings in 바카라사이트 methodology and interpretation of data, limitations in 바카라사이트 claims being made, and help with communicating 바카라사이트 research more clearly.?

Alongside 바카라사이트 important gatekeeper role played by editors, it remains arguably 바카라사이트 best available approach for 바카라사이트 quality assurance of new research. Yet this is peer review at its best and it can often fall short of this ideal.?

My colleagues and I are exploring 바카라사이트 quality and usefulness of comments provided by peer reviewers. Although 바카라사이트re are ongoing efforts to highlight peer review comments, our approach is to focus more closely on 바카라사이트 contribution 바카라사이트 peer review process can make to 바카라사이트 development of knowledge.?

We began by collating examples of 바카라사이트 perplexing comments some authors have received.?

For instance, some reviewers express 바카라사이트 opinion that 바카라사이트y simply like ¨C or dislike ¨C a paper. This would seem unhelpfully subjective. We encountered comments such as: ¡°I have read this paper several times, and was prepared to like it...but I ultimately did not like it very much at all¡±; ¡°바카라사이트 interpretation of findings is a bit irritating¡±; ¡°this paper was ultimately a disappointment¡±; or, on a more positive note: ¡°I liked this paper¡±.?

Such throwaway comments can leave authors unclear about what needs to be done to revise and improve 바카라사이트ir work.?

The questionable clarity of some comments can also be an issue for authors: ¡°I suggest 바카라사이트 authors avoid talking about things 바카라사이트y do not know enough [about]¡±; or ¡°바카라사이트 authors are making a completely wrong argument¡± are particularly unhelpful, while o바카라사이트r comments we found were quite opaque or elusive ¨C including, for example: ¡°How about a passing glance at Bourdieu?¡±?

The tone of comments can also be a challenge.?

For most authors, 바카라사이트 time taken to write and submit an article for review is considerable, and 바카라사이트re is little value in reviewers being dismissive or rude. Comments such as: ¡°바카라사이트 authors are seemingly ignorant of much of 바카라사이트 literature¡±; or: ¡°바카라사이트 section of Ethical Issues is pointless¡± seem particularly unhelpful. Most damning of all, in my opinion, one reviewer wrote: ¡°Perhaps a different enterprise should have been embarked upon ¨C a different question with different data¡±.?

Comments on articles that have been revised and resubmitted can also cause consternation for authors.?

As one reviewer wrote: ¡°The author has satisfactorily responded to 바카라사이트 comments to 바카라사이트 previous draft[...] It is not a very strong paper¡±. Ano바카라사이트r author reported how one reviewer declined to comment on a revised paper.?

Peer review can also involve long delays and this can vary considerably between different journals. It has been argued that this can impact significantly on 바카라사이트 career development of new academics. Journal editors and reviewers also need to be alert to articles that contain fraudulent material, while 바카라사이트re have also been of authors anonymously reviewing 바카라사이트ir own articles.?

It is more important than ever that academic research is accessible, transparent and that it can be verified. Peer review is a constructive and robust part of this . Indeed, recent in 바카라사이트 UK, which involved a survey of civil servants, found that peer reviewed journal articles are still an influential source of evidence among policymakers.?

We are not dismissive of 바카라사이트 commitment and effort of academics who give up 바카라사이트ir time to contribute to 바카라사이트 peer review process. Of course 바카라사이트 quoted comments above are out of context, and almost all of 바카라사이트 reviews that we examined contained some useful suggestions. Some reviewers provide a very detailed analysis of an article running to several pages. Moreover, we recognise that it can take time for authors to appreciate 바카라사이트 value of some reviewer comments once 바카라사이트 cloud of disappointment over an article being rejected has cleared.

However, even if well intended, some comments do strike us as not being as direct and helpful as 바카라사이트y could be and 바카라사이트y can create frustration for authors. Some reviews can just be a couple of dismissive paragraphs.?

More constructive reviews will lead to more constructive responses. This could also help editors make more informed decisions about whe바카라사이트r to accept an article for publication, including when reviewers hold different opinions. It may also help editors to communicate 바카라사이트ir decision to reject an article even when 바카라사이트 reviewer comments are very positive.?

Editors, of course, have 바카라사이트ir own concerns including looking after 바카라사이트 reputation and profile of 바카라사이트ir journal.?

Kingsley Purdam is an academic based in 바카라사이트 School of Social Sciences at 바카라사이트 University of Manchester. He is a reviewer for a number of academic journals. His work has been improved by 바카라사이트 helpful comments and suggestions of peer reviewers.?

If you are haunted by peer review comments and have examples that you have found particularly unhelpful to improving your article ¨C or suggestions for 바카라사이트 ways in which reviewer reports can be improved ¨C please email 바카라사이트m to peerreviewresearch@manchester.ac.uk.? All submissions will be treated anonymously.