Is It Good to Be Asked to Review a Paper

A good peer review requires disciplinary expertise, a not bad and disquisitional eye, and a diplomatic and constructive approach. Credit: dmark/iStockphoto

As junior scientists develop their expertise and make names for themselves, they are increasingly probable to receive invitations to review research manuscripts. It'south an important skill and service to the scientific community, but the learning curve tin exist specially steep. Writing a skillful review requires expertise in the field, an intimate knowledge of research methods, a disquisitional mind, the ability to give fair and constructive feedback, and sensitivity to the feelings of authors on the receiving terminate. As a range of institutions and organizations around the world celebrate the essential role of peer review in upholding the quality of published research this calendar week, Science Careers shares collected insights and advice well-nigh how to review papers from researchers beyond the spectrum. The responses take been edited for clarity and brevity.

What practice you lot consider when deciding whether to accept an invitation to review a paper?

I consider iv factors: whether I'chiliad sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic to offer an intelligent assessment, how interesting I notice the research topic, whether I'm free of any disharmonize of interest, and whether I have the time. If the answer to all 4 questions is aye, then I'll usually agree to review.
- Chris Chambers , professor of cognitive neuroscience at Cardiff Academy in the United Kingdom

I am very open up-minded when information technology comes to accepting invitations to review. I see information technology as a tit-for-tat duty: Since I am an agile researcher and I submit papers, hoping for really helpful, constructive comments, it simply makes sense that I practise the same for others. So accepting an invitation for me is the default, unless a paper is really far from my expertise or my workload doesn't permit it. The only other factor I pay attending to is the scientific integrity of the journal. I would not want to review for a periodical that does non offer an unbiased review procedure.
- Eva Selenko , senior lecturer in work psychology at Loughborough University in the Britain

I'm more than prone to concur to do a review if it involves a system or method in which I have a item expertise. And I'chiliad non going to accept on a paper to review unless I accept the time. For every manuscript of my ain that I submit to a journal, I review at to the lowest degree a few papers, then I give back to the system enough. I've heard from some reviewers that they're more probable to have an invitation to review from a more prestigious journal and don't feel as bad near rejecting invitations from more specialized journals. That makes things a lot harder for editors of the less prestigious journals, and that'southward why I am more than inclined to take on reviews from them. If I've never heard of the authors, and particularly if they're from a less developed nation, so I'm too more than likely to accept the invitation. I do this because editors might take a harder time landing reviewers for these papers too, and because people who aren't deeply connected into our research community also deserve quality feedback. Finally, I am more inclined to review for journals with double-blind reviewing practices and journals that are run by academic societies, because those are both things that I desire to support and encourage.
- Terry McGlynn , professor of biology at California Land Academy, Dominguez Hills

I usually consider commencement the relevance to my own expertise. I will reject requests if the newspaper is too far removed from my own research areas, since I may not be able to provide an informed review. Having said that, I tend to define my expertise fairly broadly for reviewing purposes. I too consider the journal. I am more than willing to review for journals that I read or publish in. Before I became an editor, I used to be fairly eclectic in the journals I reviewed for, just at present I tend to be more than discerning, since my editing duties take up much of my reviewing time.
- John P. Walsh , professor of public policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta

One time you've agreed to consummate a review, how do you arroyo the paper?

Unless it's for a journal I know well, the beginning thing I exercise is check what format the journal prefers the review to exist in. Some journals have structured review criteria; others just ask for general and specific comments. Knowing this in advance helps save fourth dimension afterward.

I almost never print out papers for review; I adopt to work with the electronic version. I always read the paper sequentially, from kickoff to finish, making comments on the PDF as I become along. I look for specific indicators of inquiry quality, asking myself questions such equally: Are the groundwork literature and study rationale clearly articulated? Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous work? Are the methods robust and well controlled? Are the reported analyses appropriate? (I usually pay close attention to the use—and misuse—of frequentist statistics.) Is the presentation of results articulate and accessible? To what extent does the Discussion place the findings in a wider context and reach a balance betwixt interpretation and useful speculation versus irksome waffling?
- Chambers

I subconsciously follow a checklist. Offset, is it well written? That commonly becomes apparent by the Methods department. (Then, throughout, if what I am reading is only partly comprehensible, I do not spend a lot of energy trying to make sense of it, but in my review I volition relay the ambiguities to the writer.) I should besides accept a good idea of the hypothesis and context inside the starting time few pages, and it matters whether the hypothesis makes sense or is interesting. Then I read the Methods section very carefully. I exercise not focus so much on the statistics—a quality periodical should have professional statistics review for whatsoever accepted manuscript—but I consider all the other logistics of study design where it's like shooting fish in a barrel to hide a fatal flaw. Mostly I am concerned with credibility: Could this methodology have answered their question? Then I look at how convincing the results are and how careful the clarification is. Sloppiness anywhere makes me worry. The parts of the Give-and-take I focus on most are context and whether the authors make claims that overreach the data. This is done all the time, to varying degrees. I want statements of fact, not opinion or speculation, backed up by information.
- Michael Callaham , emergency care md and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco

Most journals don't have special instructions, and so I only read the paper, usually starting with the Abstract, looking at the figures, and and so reading the paper in a linear fashion. I read the digital version with an open word processing file, keeping a list of "major items" and "minor items" and making notes equally I go. In that location are a few aspects that I brand sure to address, though I embrace a lot more footing likewise. First, I consider how the question being addressed fits into the electric current status of our cognition. Second, I ponder how well the work that was conducted actually addresses the central question posed in the paper. (In my field, authors are under pressure to broadly sell their work, and it's my job as a reviewer to address the validity of such claims.) Third, I brand sure that the design of the methods and analyses are appropriate.
- McGlynn

First, I read a printed version to get an overall impression. What is the paper nearly? How is information technology structured? I as well pay attention to the schemes and figures; if they are well designed and organized, then in virtually cases the entire paper has also been carefully thought out.

When diving in deeper, start I try to appraise whether all the important papers are cited in the references, as that also often correlates with the quality of the manuscript itself. Then, right in the Introduction, you tin can often recognize whether the authors considered the full context of their topic. After that, I check whether all the experiments and data make sense, paying particular attention to whether the authors carefully designed and performed the experiments and whether they analyzed and interpreted the results in a comprehensible manner. Information technology is also very of import that the authors guide you through the whole article and explain every table, every figure, and every scheme.

As I continue, I employ a highlighter and other pens, and then the manuscript is unremarkably colorful afterward I read information technology. Too that, I make notes on an extra sheet.
- Melanie Kim Müller , doctoral candidate in organic chemistry at the Technical Academy of Kaiserslautern in Germany

I outset familiarize myself with the manuscript and read relevant snippets of the literature to brand sure that the manuscript is coherent with the larger scientific domain. Then I scrutinize it section past section, noting if in that location are whatever missing links in the story and if certain points are under- or overrepresented. I also scout for inconsistencies in the portrayal of facts and observations, appraise whether the exact technical specifications of the study materials and equipment are described, consider the adequacy of the sample size and the quality of the figures, and assess whether the findings in the main manuscript are aptly supplemented by the supplementary section and whether the authors have followed the periodical's submission guidelines.
- Chaitanya Giri , postdoctoral research fellow at the Earth-Life Scientific discipline Institute in Tokyo

I print out the paper, as I detect it easier to make comments on the printed pages than on an electronic reader. I read the manuscript very carefully the first time, trying to follow the authors' argument and predict what the next step could exist. At this start stage, I attempt to exist every bit open-minded every bit I can. I don't take a formalized checklist, but there are a number of questions that I generally use. Does the theoretical argument make sense? Does it contribute to our knowledge, or is information technology erstwhile wine in new bottles? Is there an angle the authors have overlooked? This oft requires doing some background reading, sometimes including some of the cited literature, nearly the theory presented in the manuscript.

I then delve into the Methods and Results sections. Are the methods suitable to investigate the research question and test the hypotheses? Would there have been a better way to test these hypotheses or to analyze these results? Is the statistical analysis sound and justified? Could I replicate the results using the information in the Methods and the description of the analysis? I even selectively check individual numbers to see whether they are statistically plausible. I likewise carefully look at the explanation of the results and whether the conclusions the authors depict are justified and continued with the broader argument made in the newspaper. If there are any aspects of the manuscript that I am non familiar with, I try to read up on those topics or consult other colleagues.
- Selenko

I spend a fair amount of time looking at the figures. In addition to because their overall quality, sometimes figures enhance questions well-nigh the methods used to collect or analyze the data, or they neglect to back up a finding reported in the paper and warrant further clarification. I too desire to know whether the authors' conclusions are adequately supported by the results. Conclusions that are overstated or out of sync with the findings will adversely affect my review and recommendations.
- Dana Boatman-Reich , professor of neurology and otolaryngology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland

I more often than not read on the computer and start with the Abstruse to get an initial impression. And then I read the paper as a whole, thoroughly and from starting time to end, taking notes equally I read. For me, the commencement question is this: Is the research audio? And secondly, how can it be improved? Basically, I am looking to meet if the enquiry question is well motivated; if the data are sound; if the analyses are technically correct; and, virtually chiefly, if the findings back up the claims made in the paper.
- Walsh

The main aspects I consider are the novelty of the commodity and its touch on on the field. I e'er ask myself what makes this paper relevant and what new advance or contribution the paper represents. Then I follow a routine that will help me evaluate this. First, I cheque the authors' publication records in PubMed to become a experience for their expertise in the field. I also consider whether the article contains a good Introduction and description of the land of the art, every bit that indirectly shows whether the authors have a good knowledge of the field. Second, I pay attention to the results and whether they take been compared with other similar published studies. Third, I consider whether the results or the proposed methodology have some potential broader applicability or relevance, because in my opinion this is of import. Finally, I evaluate whether the methodology used is appropriate. If the authors have presented a new tool or software, I will test information technology in item.
- Fátima Al-Shahrour , caput of the Translational Bioinformatics Unit in the clinical inquiry program at the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre in Madrid

How practise yous get most drafting the review? Do you lot sign it?

Using a copy of the manuscript that I outset marked upwardly with any questions that I had, I write a brief summary of what the paper is about and what I feel about its solidity. Then I run through the specific points I raised in my summary in more detail, in the club they appeared in the newspaper, providing folio and paragraph numbers for most. Finally comes a listing of really minor stuff, which I try to go on to a minimum. I then typically go through my first draft looking at the marked-up manuscript over again to make sure I didn't exit out annihilation important. If I feel at that place is some good material in the paper but it needs a lot of work, I will write a pretty long and specific review pointing out what the authors need to practise. If the paper has horrendous difficulties or a confused concept, I will specify that but volition non do a lot of work to try to suggest fixes for every flaw.

I never use value judgments or value-laden adjectives. Nothing is "lousy" or "stupid," and nobody is "incompetent." However, as an writer your data might exist incomplete, or you may have overlooked a huge contradiction in your results, or you lot may take fabricated major errors in the study design. That'south what I communicate, with a style to gear up information technology if a feasible one comes to heed. Hopefully, this will be used to make the manuscript better rather than to shame anyone. Overall, I want to achieve an evaluation of the study that is fair, objective, and complete enough to convince both the editor and the authors that I know something about what I'm talking about. I likewise try to cite a specific factual reason or some evidence for any major criticisms or suggestions that I brand. Subsequently all, even though you were selected as an expert, for each review the editor has to decide how much they believe in your assessment.
- Callaham

I utilise annotations that I made in the PDF to start writing my review; that fashion I never forget to mention something that occurred to me while reading the paper. Unless the periodical uses a structured review format, I usually begin my review with a general statement of my understanding of the paper and what it claims, followed by a paragraph offering an overall assessment. Then I make specific comments on each section, listing the major questions or concerns. Depending on how much time I have, I sometimes also finish with a section of minor comments. I may, for example, highlight an obvious typo or grammatical fault, though I don't pay a lot of attending to these, equally it is the authors' and copyeditors' responsibility to ensure clear writing.

I try to exist equally constructive as possible. A review is primarily for the benefit of the editor, to help them reach a decision about whether to publish or not, but I try to make my reviews useful for the authors likewise. I always write my reviews as though I am talking to the scientists in person. I try hard to avoid rude or disparaging remarks. The review process is brutal enough scientifically without reviewers making it worse.

Since obtaining tenure, I always sign my reviews. I believe it improves the transparency of the review procedure, and information technology also helps me police the quality of my own assessments by making me personally accountable.
- Chambers

I want to aid the authors improve their manuscript and to assistance the editor in the decision process by providing a neutral and balanced review of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses and how to potentially ameliorate it. After I accept finished reading the manuscript, I let information technology sink in for a solar day or so and then I try to make up one's mind which aspects really matter. This helps me to distinguish betwixt major and minor issues and also to group them thematically every bit I draft my review. My reviews normally starting time out with a short summary and a highlight of the strengths of the manuscript before briefly listing the weaknesses that I believe should be addressed. I try to link any criticism I have either to a page number or a quotation from the manuscript to ensure that my argument is understood. I too selectively refer to others' piece of work or statistical tests to substantiate why I call up something should be done differently.

I try to exist constructive past suggesting ways to better the problematic aspects, if that is possible, and also try to hit a calm and friendly but also neutral and objective tone. This is non ever easy, peculiarly if I find what I call up is a serious flaw in the manuscript. However, I know that beingness on the receiving end of a review is quite stressful, and a critique of something that is close to one's heart can easily be perceived as unjust. I try to write my reviews in a tone and form that I could put my name to, even though reviews in my field are normally double-blind and non signed.
- Selenko

I'm aiming to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the quality of the paper that will be of apply to both the editor and the authors. I remember a lot of reviewers arroyo a paper with the philosophy that they are there to identify flaws. But I only mention flaws if they thing, and I will brand sure the review is constructive. If I'grand pointing out a problem or concern, I substantiate it enough so that the authors can't say, "Well, that's not correct" or "That'southward not off-white." I work to be conversational and factual, and I clearly distinguish statements of fact from my ain opinions.

I used to sign nigh of my reviews, but I don't do that anymore. If y'all make a practice of signing reviews, and then over the years, many of your colleagues volition accept received reviews with your name on them. Even if you are focused on writing quality reviews and being fair and collegial, it'south inevitable that some colleagues will be less than beholden about the content of the reviews. And if you identify a newspaper that you lot retrieve has a substantial error that is not easily fixed, then the authors of this paper will find it hard to not hold a grudge. I've known also many junior scientists who take been burned from signing their reviews early on on in their careers. So now, I only sign my reviews so as to be fully transparent on the rare occasions when I suggest that the authors cite papers of mine, which I only do when my work volition remedy factual errors or correct the merits that something has never been addressed before.
- McGlynn

My review begins with a paragraph summarizing the paper. And so I have bullet points for major comments and for small-scale comments. Major comments may include suggesting a missing control that could make or break the authors' conclusions or an important experiment that would assistance the story, though I attempt non to recommend extremely hard experiments that would be beyond the telescopic of the newspaper or have forever. Minor comments may include flagging the mislabeling of a figure in the text or a misspelling that changes the meaning of a common term. Overall, I try to make comments that would make the paper stronger. My tone is very formal, scientific, and in 3rd person. I'm critiquing the work, non the authors. If in that location is a major flaw or business organization, I endeavour to be honest and back information technology up with evidence.
- Sara Wong , doctoral candidate in cellular and molecular biological science at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

I start by making a bullet betoken list of the main strengths and weaknesses of the paper and so mankind out the review with details. I often refer back to my annotated version of the online paper. I normally differentiate betwixt major and minor criticisms and give-and-take them as direct and concisely as possible. When I recommend revisions, I endeavour to requite clear, detailed feedback to guide the authors. Even if a manuscript is rejected for publication, most authors can benefit from suggestions. I endeavour to stick to the facts, so my writing tone tends toward neutral. Before submitting a review, I inquire myself whether I would be comfortable if my identity every bit a reviewer was known to the authors. Passing this "identity test" helps ensure that my review is sufficiently balanced and off-white.
- Boatman-Reich

My reviews tend to take the form of a summary of the arguments in the newspaper, followed by a summary of my reactions and so a series of the specific points that I wanted to raise. By and large, I am trying to identify the authors' claims in the paper that I did non find convincing and guide them to ways that these points can be strengthened (or, mayhap, dropped as across the telescopic of what this study can back up). If I detect the newspaper especially interesting (and even if I am going to recommend rejection), I tend to give a more detailed review because I want to encourage the authors to develop the paper (or, peradventure, to practise a new paper along the lines suggested in the review). My tone is i of trying to be constructive and helpful even though, of form, the authors might non agree with that label.
- Walsh

I endeavour to deed as a neutral, curious reader who wants to empathise every detail. If there are things I struggle with, I will suggest that the authors revise parts of their newspaper to make it more than solid or broadly accessible. I want to requite them honest feedback of the same blazon that I hope to receive when I submit a paper.
- Müller

I outset with a brief summary of the results and conclusions as a way to prove that I accept understood the newspaper and take a general stance. I always comment on the course of the paper, highlighting whether it is well written, has correct grammer, and follows a correct structure. Then, I separate the review in 2 sections with bullet points, beginning listing the almost critical aspects that the authors must accost to improve demonstrate the quality and novelty of the newspaper and then more than minor points such every bit misspelling and figure format. When you deliver criticism, your comments should be honest but always respectful and accompanied with suggestions to amend the manuscript.
- Al-Shahrour

When, and how, practice you make up one's mind on your recommendation?

I make a decision after drafting my review. I usually sit down on the review for a day and then reread it to be sure it is balanced and off-white before deciding anything.
- Boatman-Reich

I usually don't decide on a recommendation until I've read the entire paper, although for poor quality papers, it isn't always necessary to read everything.
- Chambers

I only make a recommendation to accept, revise, or reject if the journal specifically requests one. The decision is fabricated by the editor, and my job equally a reviewer is to provide a nuanced and detailed written report on the paper to support the editor.
- McGlynn

The decision comes along during reading and making notes. If in that location are serious mistakes or missing parts, and then I exercise non recommend publication. I usually write down all the things that I noticed, good and bad, and then my decision does not influence the content and length of my review.
- Müller

In my experience, near papers go through several rounds of revisions before I would recommend them for publication. Generally, if I tin can see originality and novelty in a manuscript and the study was carried out in a solid way, and then I requite a recommendation for "revise and resubmit," highlighting the need for the assay strategy, for case, to be further developed. However, if the machinery being tested does not actually provide new noesis, or if the method and study design are of bereft quality, then my hopes for a manuscript are rather low. The length and content of my reviews generally do not relate to the result of my decisions. I commonly write rather lengthy reviews at the first round of the revision procedure, and these tend to go shorter as the manuscript then improves in quality.
- Selenko

Publication is not a binary recommendation. The fact that only 5% of a journal's readers might ever await at a paper, for instance, can't exist used as criteria for rejection, if in fact it is a seminal paper that will impact that field. And we never know what findings will amount to in a few years; many quantum studies were not recognized as such for many years. And so I can only rate what priority I believe the paper should receive for publication today.
- Callaham

If the inquiry presented in the paper has serious flaws, I am inclined to recommend rejection, unless the shortcoming can be remedied with a reasonable amount of revising. Also, I take the point of view that if the author cannot convincingly explain her study and findings to an informed reader, then the paper has not met the burden for acceptance in the periodical.
- Walsh

My recommendations are inversely proportional to the length of my reviews. Short reviews translate into strong recommendations and vice versa.
- Giri

How long does it take you to review a newspaper?

This varies widely, from a few minutes if in that location is clearly a major problem with the newspaper to one-half a twenty-four hour period if the paper is really interesting just there are aspects that I don't empathize. Occasionally, there are difficulties with a potentially publishable article that I retrieve I tin can't properly assess in half a day, in which example I will render the paper to the journal with an explanation and a proffer for an expert who might be closer to that aspect of the inquiry.
- Nicola Spaldin , professor of materials theory at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich

It unremarkably takes me a few hours.  Most of the time is spent closely reading the paper and taking notes. Once I have the notes, writing the review itself by and large takes less than an hour.
- Walsh

Information technology can take me quite a long time to write a good review, sometimes a full day of work and sometimes even longer. The detailed reading and the sense-making process, in item, takes a long time. As well, sometimes I find that something is not quite right but tin't quite put my finger on it until I have properly digested the manuscript.
- Selenko

A few hours. I like to use ii sittings, even when I am pretty sure of my conclusions. Waiting some other mean solar day ever seems to ameliorate the review.
- Callaham

Normally, a peer review takes me ane or 2 days, including reading the supporting information.
- Müller

I almost always exercise it in one sitting, annihilation from one to 5 hours depending on the length of the paper.
- Chambers

In my experience, the submission borderline for reviews usually ranges betwixt three working days to upwardly to 3 weeks. As a rule of pollex, I roughly devote twenty% of my reviewing time to a first, overall-impression browsing of the newspaper; twoscore% to a second reading that includes writing up suggestions and comments; 30% to a third reading that includes checking the compliance of the authors to the journal guidelines and the proper utilize of subject-typical jargon; and x% to the last goof-proof browsing of my review. Altogether, it usually takes me more than than a day.
- Giri

What further advice do y'all have for researchers who are new to the peer-review procedure?

Many reviewers are not polite plenty. It'due south OK for a paper to say something that you don't agree with. Sometimes I will say in a review something like, "I disagree with the authors well-nigh this interpretation, but information technology is scientifically valid and an appropriate utilise of journal space for them to make this argument." If y'all have any questions during the review procedure, don't hesitate to contact the editor who asked you to review the paper. Also, if you don't accept a review invitation, give her a few names for suggested reviewers, peculiarly senior Ph.D. students and postdocs. In my feel, they are unlikely to write a poor quality review; they might be more likely to accept the invitation, equally senior scientists are typically overwhelmed with review requests; and the opportunity to review a manuscript can help support their professional development.
- McGlynn

The paper reviewing process can help y'all form your own scientific opinion and develop critical thinking skills. It will also provide you with an overview of the new advances in the field and assist you when writing and submitting your ain articles. So although peer reviewing definitely takes some effort, in the end it volition be worth information technology. Too, the journal has invited you to review an article based on your expertise, just there volition exist many things y'all don't know. Then if you have not fully understood something in the paper, practise not hesitate to ask for clarification. It volition help you brand the right conclusion.

- Al-Shahrour

Retrieve that a review is non about whether one likes a certain piece of work, only whether the research is valid and tells us something new. Another mutual error is writing an unfocused review that is lost in the details. You lot can better highlight the major issues that need to be dealt with by restructuring the review, summarizing the important issues upfront, or adding asterisks. I would really encourage other scientists to take upwardly peer-review opportunities whenever possible. Reviewing is a great learning experience and an heady thing to do. 1 gets to know super fresh research firsthand and gain insight into other authors' statement structure. I also remember it is our duty equally researchers to write good reviews. Later on all, we are all in it together. The soundness of the entire peer-review process depends on the quality of the reviews that we write.
- Selenko

As a junior researcher, it may feel a little weird or daunting to critique someone'southward completed work. Just pretend that it'due south your own inquiry and figure out what experiments y'all would do and how you would interpret the data.
- Wong

Bear in heed that i of the about dangerous traps a reviewer can fall into is failing to recognize and acknowledge their own bias. To me, it is biased to reach a verdict on a newspaper based on how groundbreaking or novel the results are, for example. Such judgments have no place in the assessment of scientific quality, and they encourage publication bias from journals besides as bad practices from authors to produce attractive results by cherry picking. Also, I wouldn't suggest early-career researchers to sign their reviews, at least not until they either have a permanent position or otherwise feel stable in their careers. Although I believe that all established professors should be required to sign, the fact is that some authors tin can concur grudges confronting reviewers. Nosotros like to think of scientists as objective truth-seekers, but nosotros are all too human and academia is intensely political, and a powerful author who receives a critical review from a more junior scientist could be in a position to do great harm to the reviewer's career prospects.
- Chambers

It is necessary to maintain decorum: One should review the newspaper justly and entirely on its merit, even if it comes from a competing inquiry group. Finally, at that place are occasions where you become extremely exciting papers that you might exist tempted to share with your colleagues, but you have to resist the urge and maintain strict confidentiality.
- Giri

At least early, it is a good idea to be open up to review invitations so that you can see what unfinished papers await like and get familiar with the review process. Many journals send the decision letters to the reviewers. Reading these tin can give you lot insights into how the other reviewers viewed the paper, and into how editors evaluate reviews and make decisions about rejection versus acceptance or revise and resubmit.
- Walsh

At the first of my career, I wasted quite a lot of energy feeling guilty about existence behind in my reviewing. New requests and reminders from editors kept piling up at a faster rate than I could consummate the reviews and the problem seemed intractable. I solved it past making the conclusion to review one journal article per week, putting a slot in my agenda for it, and promptly declining subsequent requests after the weekly slot is filled—or offering the next bachelor opening to the editor. And now I am in the happy situation of only experiencing tardily-review guilt on Fri afternoons, when I still have some time ahead of me to complete the calendar week's review.
- Spaldin

downiethfuriene1955.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/how-review-paper

Share :