Peer reviews are not easy for authors and neither for reviewers. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)


Peer Reviews Are Not Easy For Authors and Neither For Reviewers. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

peer1I have been involved in research since 2003 beginning with the work behind carrying out a PhD. The pressure for me came before thinking about publishing any paper due to a demanding agenda designed to accommodate the requirements from a none academic institution and its representing supervisor, pushing me to have ready on paper the whole load of designing, performing, analysing, discussing, writing, editing and proof reading my thesis within 3 years (for their internal records). Thereafter I had the pressure coming from having to accomplish the demands under a different research position aimed for knowledge exchange dragging me into methods designing and implementation for Aerobiological studies, leaving aside the relevance of publishing until the last minute. Ultimately, I have become a researcher whom has reviewed more papers for scientific journals than I have published for myself. So, I want to share some points from my experience as “user” and “reviewer” of scientific papers.

First of all, the willingness to help fellow researchers throughout a review varies accordingly with the variable sense of facing a work more or less thought through.
e.g. I remember an article with a methodology for air quality monitoring based on “consecutive weekly periods of time”. After scrutiny, I identified those “weeks” having a length of “5 days”. So, how can you not know your own sampling methods?? And more importantly, they were comparing parameters between similar periods of time “in length”, but comparing periods including weekends (industry reduces activity) with periods without weekends, with “no distinction”. That makes weak the methodology and the whole section of results and discussion. In another hand, I have seen some articles discussing results which are not mentioned in the methodology. And methodologies being picked up without justification.

The level of messiness and lack of links connecting the parts throughout the paper can be irritating and affect the quality of the review. So, I have myself started to make reviews creating a table, with parallel columns for each section, in which I am adding the points addressed so I can find easier the links through the whole paper.
I would profoundly suggest to authors to create similar type of table before submitting a paper, and also journals should have a template like it for submission. Accordingly, the intro with the justification of the suitability of the methodology selected should match with the description in the methods section, and then with the results obtained for each analysis, and these with the discussion. All side by side in your table.

Another issue that has appeared in my experience is that it is expected that authors have carefully reviewed the existing literature associated with a specific topic.

Well, actually, that is what it is expected and some authors seem to lean back in such assumption. Then, as reviewer you face two options. If you just point it out you don´t know what are they going to do about it for the next review and it might elongate the process if they fail. If you add your own literature review you start to become relevant in the body of work presented since it might alter the interpretation of the results and discussion. So that creates a conflict when trying to ensure the absence of ghost writers defending the authorship of the manuscript. And remember that reviewers, not only don´t get reimbursed, but neither is its contribution recognised.

For me, I have been forced to stop doing reviews since I am in transition between jobs without institutional support and I don´t have easy access to published papers to perform a proper peer process. And if I give my review I want to be sure that it does not suffers from lack of attention.

The value of the data presented and discussed in a paper is always the reflection of the suitability and understanding of the methodology chosen. And most importantly, despite of any peer review process leading to publication, the most important review comes when every researcher “becomes a reviewer” judging if a published article is good enough to be incorporated and being cited as part of a new work.

—-xxxx—–

(Any scientist working in disciplines related with the topics that I treat in my blog knows how to judge the contribution that my work could potentially add to the state of knowledge. Since I am in transition looking for a position in research, if you are one of those scientists, by just acknowledging any value you might see from my contribution would not only make justice to my effort as independent researcher, but ultimately, it will help me to enhance my chances to find a position with resources to further develop my work.

If you feel like sharing this post I would appreciate to have a reference about the place or platform, by private or public message, in order for me to have the opportunity to join the debate and be aware of the repercussion which might generate d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com)

For anybody interested in other posts addressing environmental challenges in the field of science check the category “opinion“.

You can find also posts addressing specific environmental issues thorughout the rest of the categories mentioned at the top of the blog’s page. Please check them out:

Advertisements

About Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

Citing This Site "Title", published online "Month"+"Year", retrieved on "Month""Day", "Year" from http://www.diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com. By Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. More guidance on citing this web as a source can be found at NASA webpage: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/bibliography/citations#! DOIs can be generated on demand by request by email: d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com for those publications missing at the ResearchGate profile vinculated with this project. Author´s profile: Bachelor in General Biology, Masters degree "Licenciado" in Environmental Sciences (2001, Spain). PhD in Aerobiology (2007, UK). Lived, acquired training and worked in Spain, UK, Germany and Poland. I have shared the outcome from my previous work as scientific speaker in events held in those countries as well as in Switzerland and Finland. After couple of years performing research and working in institutions linked with environmental research and management, I find myself in a period of transition searching for a new position or funding to support my research. In the present competitive scenario, instead of just moving my cv and wait for my next opportunity to arrive, I have decided to invest also my energy and time in opening my own line of research showing what I am capable of. The value of the data and the original nature of the research presented in this blog has proved to be worthy of consideration by the scientific community as well as for publication in scientific journals. However, without a position as member of an institution, it becomes very challenging to be published. I hope that this handicap do not overshadow the value of my work and the intellectual rights represented by the license of attribution attached are respected and considered by the scientist involved in this line of research. Any comment and feedback aimed to be constructive is welcome. In this blog I publish pieces of research focused on addressing relevant environmental questions. Furthermore, I try to break the barrier that academic publications very often offer isolating scientific findings from the general public. In that way I address those topics which I am familiar with, thanks to my training in environmental research, making them available throughout my posts. (see "Framework and Timeline" for a complete index). At this moment, 2017, I am living in Spain with no affiliation attachments. Free to relocate geographically worldwide. If you feel that I could be a contribution to your institution, team and projects don´t hesitate in contact me at d.fdezsevilla (at) gmail.com or consult my profile at LinkedIn, ResearchGate and Academia.edu. Also, I'd appreciate information about any opportunity that you might know and believe it could match with my aptitudes. The conclusions and ideas expressed in each post as part of my own creativity are part of my Intellectual Portfolio and are protected by Intellectual Property Laws. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial conditions. In citing my work from this website, be sure to include the date of access. (c)Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD, 2017. Filling in or Finding Out the gaps around. Publication accessed 20YY-MM-DD at http://www.diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com/
This entry was posted in Aerobiology, Cultural Cognition, Filling in, Opinion and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Peer reviews are not easy for authors and neither for reviewers. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

  1. Pingback: The Language of Science ( by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) | diego fdez-sevilla

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s