This editorial note aims to communicate to the readers of the journal the unified set of rules for a good and bad peer-review, and to emphasize on the avoidance and consequences of a rude peer-review.Ī good peer-review should be objective, instructional and informative.
Occasionally, reviewers’ comments are rude or unprofessional in a study, more than half of 1106 anonymous respondents reported receiving at least one “unprofessional” review, and a majority of those said they had received multiple problematic comments including comments tended to personally target a scientist, lack constructive criticism, or unnecessarily harsh or cruel. A growing body of quantitative evidence showed violations of objectivity and bias in the peer review process for reasons based on author attributes such as language, institutional affiliation, nationality, and others, authors’ identity such as gender and sexuality, and reviewers’ perceptions of the field such as territoriality within field, personal gripes with authors, scientific dogma, discontent/distrust of methodological advances. Peer-review is considered a biased process with identified defects some peer-reviewers are too young with limited experience, not all are equally skilled in the peer-review process, and very few have had a formal training and assessment methods for peer-review.
0 kommentar(er)
