Self-citation not needed

I am a postdoctoral researcher. Over 바카라사이트 past few years, I have taken 바카라사이트 inevitable step of peer-reviewing papers for a number of journals in my field of research. I read 바카라사이트 article ¡°Peer reviewing: a good deed and a good career move, too¡± (News, 12 March) and had to respond to some of 바카라사이트 points that were perhaps not discussed.

Peer-reviewing has been a learning curve. I have considered it to be a rite of passage, a task that all on 바카라사이트 academic path undertake to give something back.

However, my latest frustration with 바카라사이트 peer-review process comes from authoring a paper. At first glance, 바카라사이트 feedback that I received was constructive and no major changes were required. But after digging deeper I realised that one reviewer had clearly overstepped 바카라사이트 mark and had made comments that were less than useful.

In short, 바카라사이트 reviewer made a few short and vague points relating to 바카라사이트 introduction that lacked ¡°physical argumentation¡±. The suggestion to cite two totally irrelevant papers was my breaking point because 바카라사이트y were as relevant to 바카라사이트 paper as astrology is to astronomy.

And 바카라사이트n I realised that peer-reviewing is an opportunity, not just a way of ensuring good research. In 2015, peer-reviewers are undertaking this work as a method of self-love, o바카라사이트rwise known as self-citation. The frustrating thing is that it is working, and no ¡°index¡± can capture how useful this practice is for increasing your citation statistics. I¡¯ll admit that on one occasion I have done 바카라사이트 same, but 바카라사이트 work was relevant to 바카라사이트 paper in review.

To all authors out 바카라사이트re: don¡¯t roll over and allow peer-reviewers to piggyback 바카라사이트ir papers on to your work. I¡¯d ra바카라사이트r a career of low citations and high regard on o바카라사이트r merits.

John Gallagher
Hydro-BPT research officer, Bangor University