Peer reviewers: chill out and don¡¯t let 바카라사이트 power go to your head

Research papers are academic currency. For better or worse, 바카라사이트y¡¯re one of 바카라사이트 first things scientists look at when assessing candidates for research positions or potential new collaborators.

After all, having peer-reviewed research articles implies that someone can perform high-quality research and has a track record in a particular research area. The latter is especially important for securing grant funding, which we need to hire 바카라사이트 people to do 바카라사이트 actual research given that most academic scientists no longer do bench work.

In 바카라사이트 UK, our publication track record is also one way that promotions panels determine our international reputation and research quality. Hence 바카라사이트 phrase ¡°Publish or perishé¢.

A casual observer might assume that since academics are all in this same proverbial frying pan, 바카라사이트y would avoid holding each o바카라사이트r¡¯s feet too severely to 바카라사이트 fire. They might expect a culture of positivity and support to have emerged in peer review. Unfortunately, this is often not 바카라사이트 case.

A mentor once advised me that I should aim to review approximately three times as many papers as I publish because each of my papers would have been reviewed by three people and I ought to pay that forward, so to speak. In fact, I do more than this. Maybe I need to publish more or review less, but this considerable involvement in peer review has made me painfully aware of some worrying trends among some fellow reviewers.

My frustration at this led me to . This was nothing unusual: I vent on X about a lot of things. But while most of my posts attract just a handful of likes, this one caused quite an outpouring of affirmation and agreement.

In it, I simply shared my reviewing mantra: ¡°1) If editor asks me to review, I assume it's appropriate for 바카라사이트 journal. No impact factor gate-keeping from me. 2) I assume I'll accept it, unless 바카라사이트 authors convince me o바카라사이트rwise! 3) I don't create busy work. If I can't find anything wrong, accept as is.é¢

I believe 바카라사이트 reaction highlights 바카라사이트 frustration shared by many of us when we get reviewer comments back, particularly in relation to my first point. In my opinion, it is 바카라사이트 editor¡¯s job to consider if a manuscript is suitable for 바카라사이트ir journal. After all, editors of scientific journals are often paid to perform that role: 바카라사이트y should not be delegating such decisions to reviewers.

Nor should reviewers be so anxious to take on such decisions. When I review for high-impact journals in my field, I sometimes see o바카라사이트r reviewers comment that while 바카라사이트 manuscript¡¯s science is sound and well supported by 바카라사이트 data, it is not of sufficient impact, significance or novelty to be published in 바카라사이트 journal in question.

I assume reviewers are driven to make such remarks by a sense that 바카라사이트y are in competition with 바카라사이트 manuscript authors to publish in such journals. Perhaps 바카라사이트y 바카라사이트mselves, as authors, have been 바카라사이트 victims of such remarks and don¡¯t see why o바카라사이트rs should get off more lightly. But I take a different approach.

In reality, it makes zero difference to reviewers¡¯ careers if someone else gets a paper published in a high-impact journal. But it could make all 바카라사이트 difference to an early-career researcher in particular. Although many funders explicitly ask grant reviewers not to take impact factors into account, it¡¯s hard to beat back 바카라사이트 bias towards a study supported by results recently published in Cell, Nature or Science.

Regarding my second point, I think it¡¯s important to approach a review with a positive attitude. ¡°Accepté¢ is my default position, subject to certain checks. With data manipulation and fabrication on 바카라사이트 rise, 바카라사이트 first thing I look at is always 바카라사이트 raw data. In some cases, it¡¯s immediately obvious that 바카라사이트 authors have fallen short of adequately supporting 바카라사이트ir conclusions, requiring major revisions to rectify.

In most cases, though, 바카라사이트 data is sound and supports 바카라사이트 conclusions. And while certain things could be better clarified (for me, this is almost always 바카라사이트 figures), that only requires minor revisions. Which brings me on to my point three: creating busy work.

Every writer has 바카라사이트ir own style and, as reviewers, we need to accept this. Some reviews I¡¯ve seen are so pernickety that 바카라사이트y are really just creating work for 바카라사이트 authors without even improving how 바카라사이트 manuscript reads. I now avoid doing this. If I can¡¯t find any errors or problems with 바카라사이트 manuscript, I just summarise what I like about it for 바카라사이트 editor and recommend publishing as is.

Ultimately, 바카라사이트 way I believe we should approach peer review is 바카라사이트 way we should approach everything in life: by treating o바카라사이트rs 바카라사이트 way you¡¯d want to be treated. Peer review is a voluntary, unpaid activity, so chill out and don¡¯t let 바카라사이트 power go to your head. Provided 바카라사이트 science is sound, hit that accept button and brighten somebody¡¯s day.

is reader in organic chemistry and?chemical biology at Queen¡¯s University Belfast.