Other How can scientists effectively review papers outside of their expertise?

  • Thread starter Thread starter andresB
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paper Time
AI Thread Summary
Reviewing academic papers can be challenging, especially when the content falls outside a reviewer's expertise. The process often requires significant effort to grasp complex topics, which can be daunting given the limited time frame for reviews. It's important for reviewers to focus on improving the presentation of the work rather than verifying the authors' results. Key aspects to consider during the review include checking for grammar and clarity, ensuring that graphs and images are understandable, and assessing whether the authors' conclusions are supported by their evidence. If a paper is difficult to understand, this may indicate that it lacks clarity for other potential readers as well. Reviewers should aim to provide constructive feedback, avoiding suggestions for extensive additional work unless the manuscript is of very low quality. Overall, maintaining a supportive tone and recognizing that errors are often unintentional can foster a more positive review process.
andresB
Messages
625
Reaction score
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
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
Hey, I am Andreas from Germany. I am currently 35 years old and I want to relearn math and physics. This is not one of these regular questions when it comes to this matter. So... I am very realistic about it. I know that there are severe contraints when it comes to selfstudy compared to a regular school and/or university (structure, peers, teachers, learning groups, tests, access to papers and so on) . I will never get a job in this field and I will never be taken serious by "real"...
Yesterday, 9/5/2025, when I was surfing, I found an article The Schwarzschild solution contains three problems, which can be easily solved - Journal of King Saud University - Science ABUNDANCE ESTIMATION IN AN ARID ENVIRONMENT https://jksus.org/the-schwarzschild-solution-contains-three-problems-which-can-be-easily-solved/ that has the derivation of a line element as a corrected version of the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein’s field equation. This article's date received is 2022-11-15...
Back
Top