Tag Archives: peer review

Authors July 30th, 2015

How to deal with reviewer comments

When a manuscript is submitted to a peer reviewed journal, if it is not rejected then it is almost inevitable that the authors will be asked to revise their manuscript before re-submission.  Authors often receive this criticism of their manuscript out of proportion to the actual work that is required.  On the whole, more experienced…

read more comments

Research Authors July 28th, 2015

What do IKEA, Thomas Edison, and peer review have in common?

What do a Swedish furniture retailer, a nineteenth century inventor, and peer review have in common? On the face of it, not much, but recently I read a book¹ that made me think all three might be more connected than you might think. For those of you (perhaps fortunate few) who have never been into…

read more

Authors July 16th, 2015

PEERE-ing into peer review

  Professor Flaminio Squazzoni is chair of PEERE, a project (‘Action’) funded by the European Union to explore issues around journal and grant peer review, running from 2014 to 2018. I recently spoke with Professor Squazzoni to learn more about PEERE’s mission, milestones, and desired outcomes.    Q. Give us some background on the PEERE…

read more comments

Authors June 18th, 2015

Reviewer right to reply: dealing with author rebuttals

The scenario is all too familiar. You patiently read through the paper, you make exhaustive notes, you write up a comprehensive review with point-by-point instructions explaining exactly how the manuscript is to be changed and then, lo and behold, the author has the audacity to disagree! Makes you wonder why you bother. The author, however,…

read more 2 Comments

Authors May 21st, 2015

Five tips to help editors find the best reviewers

It is obvious that having the best, most qualified, most diligent reviewers is desirable both for guiding editor’s decisions and giving authors feedback. Finding the best reviewers, however, can be a real challenge. Editors, being experts in their fields, will already have a number of contacts in their areas that they can call on, but…

read more comments

Research Authors April 21st, 2015

10 things you need to know before you peer review

Today, Wiley presents a comprehensive guide to reviewing, in a new area of our author resources platform. Our aim for this guide is to support reviewers by providing a summary of best practice and how-to guidance with contributions from editors and experienced reviewers around the world. This is an evolving resource which we will continue…

read more 2 Comments

Research March 31st, 2015

Ask about what doesn’t work- a guide for peer reviewers

“A negative result is still a result!” is a common, if slightly ironic, utterance that can frequently be heard around the ivory towers. I must say that I agree with this sentiment, and I agree with it to the extent that I think everyone who reviews a scholarly paper should be asking about what doesn’t…

read more 1 Comment

Research March 17th, 2015

Speeding up science through peer review: a Q&A with Andrew Preston of Publons

Yesterday Wiley announced a new pilot program with Publons, a new peer review information tool which produces comprehensive reviewer profiles with publisher-verified peer reviews, allowing reviewers to get credit for their reviews.  We recently spoke with Publons co-founder Andrew Preston about how Publons got started, what it does, and how it’s been received thus far.…

read more 2 Comments

Authors March 12th, 2015

How, when and why to say no to a review request

In his recent post on the editor’s view of peer review best practice, Brian Johnson highlighted the importance of prompt responses to review invitations – particularly if the reviewer is not able to undertake the review.  In today’s post, Andrew Moore, Editor-in-Chief of BioEssays and Inside the Cell explores the decision to decline a review…

read more comments

Authors February 12th, 2015

Across the desk: An Editor’s guide to peer review best practice

Peer review is an intricate system, based on trust and professionalism, as colleagues try to evaluate an ever-increasing volume of papers on short timeframes. On the one hand, the process looks simple: manuscripts are sent out to external experts with a request for evaluation, upon which an editorial decision is then based. But anyone who…

read more 1 Comment