Responding to a request to review a paper
Peer reviewing can be a rewarding activity in
itself and it can be seen as a mark of professional esteem.
You will normally be approached by letter or
email with a request to review a paper. The full paper or
an abstract may be attached. The letter will indicate a time
scale for completing the review - around three to six weeks
is common. It is important to respond quickly to the request
especially if you are unable to undertake the review as the
editor will have to ask someone else. A mark of a good journal
is the speed and efficiency of the review process and you
have a part to play in this. If you are unable to review the
paper, some journals may ask you to recommend another reviewer.
Usually, journals welcome recommendations and are happy for
you to pass the paper to a colleague or involve another person
in the review. However, it is good practice to keep the editor
fully informed and to ask permission to pass on the paper
if you are unsure of journal procedures.
Conflict of interest
Apart from the fact that you are too busy, not
interested, or feel you lack the knowledge to undertake the
review, withdrawal may occur because of a conflict of interest.
This can arise if, for example, you have a history of debate
with the author(s) over conflicting perspectives or interpretations
of policy or practice; on the other hand, you may have a close
link with the author. For example, it would often be considered
inappropriate to act as reviewer for manuscripts emanating
from within you own institution, or if you are a member of
an appointments panel for a post for which an author has applied.
If, for any reason, you feel unable to provide an impartial
review, you should discuss the problem with the editor. Some
journals aspire to a 'blind' review process whereby authors'
names are removed from the paper. In almost all journals,
reviewers' names are not passed on to authors. In reality,
it is often possible to spot a submission's authorship or
institutional base and so the reviewer has a responsibility
to consider whether this might affect recommendations to the
editor.
parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint parint v
|
