Description

Peer reviews provide a critical assessment of a manuscript prior to publication. Bioenergetics Communications publishes Open Peer Reviews for transparency of the review process.

Reference: MitoPedia: BEC

Discussions

Review quality

If reviewer's comments are not up to standards

Cardoso Luiza HD 2022-10-12

If a comment/review is not thorough, editor should ask for another one (from new reviewer)

Gnaiger Erich 2022-10-12

A review of reviewers with possible rejection of the review - this scares away more reviewers. The negative incentives are: loss of time, negative critique. We need more visions on positive incentives, other than financial: Present the most outstanding reviews, encourage 'team reviews' (journal club of a lab), encourage besides or instead of an 'Open review' the option of publishing a 'Commentary' to be reviewed by the authors who may publish a reply as part of the commentary, with DOI. [Unlike the open peer review, this comment would be published on a separate page to the published manuscript.]
If a review does not have critical/constructive comments, it should not be published.

If reviewers have missed a key element

Regardless of the stage or the review process, the handling editors can and should ask for another review. They may request the reviewer with expertise in a certain area to focus on just a specific section of the manuscript that they believe needs further checking.

MitoPedia topics: BEC