Difference between revisions of "Peer review"
From Bioblast
Tindle Lisa (talk | contribs) m |
ย |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
ย [[Cardoso Luiza HD]] 2022-10-12 | ย [[Cardoso Luiza HD]] 2022-10-12 | ||
::: * If a comment/review is not thorough, editor should ask for another one (from new reviewer) | :::* If a comment/review is not thorough, editor should ask for another one (from new reviewer) | ||
ย [[Gnaiger Erich]] 2022-10-12 | ย [[Gnaiger Erich]] 2022-10-12 |
Latest revision as of 12:14, 2 November 2022
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- If a review does not have critical/constructive comments, it should not be published.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