How can scientists effectively review papers outside of their expertise?

  • Other
  • Thread starter andresB
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Paper Time
In summary, the conversation discusses the challenges of being a peer reviewer for a paper in a top journal. The speaker accepted the review due to their expertise in the topic but found the content to be beyond their knowledge and required significant effort to understand. The speaker outlines their approach to reviewing, including checking for grammar and clarity of presentation, understanding the authors' main points and evidence, and providing specific suggestions for improvement. The speaker also advises against suggesting additional work and emphasizes the importance of writing a supportive report.
  • #1
andresB
626
374
A week ago I accepted to review a paper for a top journal. I was contacted because I've published several papers on the same semi-obscure topic in the last two years. I accepted because the abstract was interesting and thought provoking.

However, after having access to the full paper I discovered the content to be far away from my expertise. I had to study a lot of new things just to have an idea of what the authors are even saying.

Being a reviewer seems to be a very hard job, three weeks to understand and give a solid opinion on a work that condensates months or even years of investigation.

So, how people even do this thing called peer review? any advice?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I know how you feel- it can be disorienting to 'have to' comment on work that is quite foreign. The good news is that you probably don't need to verify/certify the authors' results. I try to review papers/proposals generally with a view towards improving the presentation. There are a few 'levels' that I review material:

1) grammar/spelling/etc.- the super low-level copyediting stuff. I try not to spend too much time on this unless it martially impacts my ability to understand the writing.

2) Clarity of presentation: do I understand the graphs/plots/images? Are the annotations clear? Do the captions provide sufficient information to understand the graphics/tables? I also scan the reference list for (obvious) errors and also to get an idea of the context the authors are working in.

3) Do I understand what are the authors trying to say? Do the methods used make sense? Does the evidence provided by the authors sufficiently support their conclusions, or are there alternative explanations they have not identified? And yes- this is the most time-consuming part. It's ok not to understand, and in fact it may be useful to just say that- if you can't understand the paper, most likely other readers won't understand it either and just ignore the paper entirely. Don't forget- you are but one reviewer among several.

I try not to suggest additional work- I consider that bad form. If the manuscript is of such substandard quality that the authors clearly need to do a lot of additional work, I just note that and reject the manuscript.

Last comment- try and write a supportive report. Be specific with suggestions. It's fine to point out errors/mistakes, but I assume errors and the like are honest mistakes, not evidence of fraud.
 
  • Like
Likes member 428835, vanhees71, Choppy and 3 others

What is the purpose of reviewing a paper for the first time?

The purpose of reviewing a paper for the first time is to provide feedback and constructive criticism to the authors in order to improve the quality of their research. As a reviewer, your role is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the paper and make recommendations for revisions or improvements.

What are the key elements to consider when reviewing a paper for the first time?

When reviewing a paper for the first time, it is important to consider the clarity and organization of the writing, the validity and relevance of the research methodology, the accuracy and interpretation of the results, and the overall contribution of the paper to the field of study. It is also important to provide feedback on any potential ethical concerns or conflicts of interest.

What should I do if I am unsure about a specific aspect of the paper?

If you are unsure about a specific aspect of the paper, it is best to consult with other experts in the field or do some additional research to gain a better understanding. It is important to provide thorough and accurate feedback, so don't hesitate to reach out for help if needed.

How do I balance being critical and providing constructive feedback?

It is important to strike a balance between being critical and providing constructive feedback when reviewing a paper for the first time. While it is important to point out any flaws or weaknesses in the paper, it is equally important to offer suggestions for improvement and acknowledge the strengths of the research. Remember to be respectful and professional in your feedback.

What should I do if I discover plagiarism or other ethical concerns in the paper?

If you discover plagiarism or other ethical concerns in the paper, it is important to bring this to the attention of the editor immediately. Plagiarism and other ethical violations are serious offenses in the scientific community and should not be ignored. The editor will then take appropriate actions to address the issue.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
21
Views
12K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
8
Replies
264
Views
14K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
5K
Back
Top