#PeerReviewWeek2023

How was it for you? I'm tired, but I liked it... 😳

Listen... I made an effort! I really wanted this to come to the world fully formed yesterday... 

It didn't happen. Too much information and "zooms" make me groggy...

So, here we are. End of #PeerReviewWeek2023. My first full one. 
How was it for you? I'm tired, but I liked it... 
 
 
I promised a post a day, so I'm due one. This one. I want to tell you all about how I do this thing. Peer review is not an art form. It's work. We can break it down into a process.

How do you become a good peer reviewer?

Not to brag, but already doing it, I'm quite good 😎 (did you see this?)

Here are some top tips:

  • Read.
In your area, in areas adjacent, sometimes in completely unrelated ones. 
It's good to be aware of different styles and conventions, as they all have features we can learn from. 
Reading keeps you up to speed with the latest developments in your field, and it is a good habit to maintain if you want to continuously develop your style.
  • Take notes.  
As good as you may be, you don't know it all. Nobody does.
This is especially true if going through texts describing new research. There is always something that you can learn: a reference paper you were not aware of, the application of a known technique that intrigued you, a different way to present the data.
  • Praise the good.
There is always something. Find it. 
The authors spent a long time thinking about the paper in front of you, structuring the study, conducting literature review, gathering data, analysing it, writing it up. 
Acknowledge the effort.
  • Point out the errors.
Reading a peer review report is a learning opportunity for the authors. 
Grab your teacher's hat. Be pedagogical. This is maybe the first time these ideas have been made public. 
Be constructive: what could be done differently to improve the study or the writing? If there is a fundamental flaw in reasoning, state this. But never get into personal judgements.
  • Be aware of your own biases.
You are human. The authors are human. Even AI has biases...
Just keep yourself in check. Be fair. Be transparent if any conflict of interest arises. A reviewer is in a priviledged position. Keep the integrity of the process.
  • Be clear.
Your goal is to communicate your thoughts on someone else's work and writing. Your suggestions could lead to improvements in the work and help to advance knowledge. Structure helps in doing this. Define key priorities and differentiate between "must have" and "would be nice to include".
 

If you are starting out in your academic career and would like some feedback on your writing, get in touch. 

If you have been asked to review a paper by your supervisor and don't know where to start, email me. 

If you're reading a paper and have no idea whether it's good or bad, whether to trust the findings it describes or not, I'm here to help.

This is what I do. It's the job I excel at. 

And I can teach you the ropes.

Discover Storytelling for Science!




Comments

Post a Comment

Leave a comment!

How to spot fake reviewers: a beginner's guide

Image
For those unfamiliar with or new to academic publishing, peer review manipulation is hard to spot. This is mainly because most peer review reports are still confidential documents that stay buried deep in academic journal's editorial offices. As long as this continues to be the default, recognising good and bad peer reviews is difficult enough... now we have to worry about fake peer review as well?! 😒 Well, yes. Yes, we do. The peer review process in academic publishing is unlike any other. The style and content of a manuscript are criticized, as are the thought processes that birthed it. Everything from word choice to significance of the research focus is under scrutiny. In traditional peer review formats, reviewers recommend that manuscripts be accepted or rejected. This much power may make some less scrupulous people guiddy... or yearning to rig the system. The refereeing work that is supposed to be one of the garantors of research integrity is itself highly susceptible to ma
Read more

Auditing published papers (part I)

Image
After they have been published, I audit research papers.  Image by @freepik Why? How does that work? 😕 A new revised version of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI) has been produced by Allea , and recognised by the European Commission, one of the world's largest research funding bodies. This revision focuses on a heightened awareness of issues pertaining to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion ( EDI ), but also the General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR ), and even Open Science . I know.. too much legal speak, too many acronyms... 😬 So, let me sum it up for you. 🔊 All institutions, organizations, and individuals that engage in or interact with research must always abide by the principles of: Honesty Respect   Reliability   Accountability  Simple enough, right? Humm.. I analyse papers that have been flagged as "of concern". 😟 The issues I most commonly see have to do with lack of funding or data availability statements, inappropriate citati
Read more

IMHO: why open science should adopt double anonymous peer review

Image
Let's get opinionated... Peer review is still the cornerstone of quality research. This has been repeated by so many during #PeerReviewWeek2023 , it almost lost its meaning to me. I participated in this conversation wholeheartedly, as a freelancer with a variety of roles, from content review to integrity audits.  I’m no longer in academia, but I did my stint there: it’s hard to imagine that many PhD students and postdocs get excited by performing their first peer review. It often results from an invitation trickle-down and, although it can be regarded as a learning opportunity, peer review is hard, time-consuming, unpaid, and often unrecognized work. Open participation is often regarded by researchers as the fairer, more constructive and productive process, leading to improvement in the quality of the finished version of the works. This is the iterative version of having a preprint published in a stable server, with access to all versions of the work, and “comments on”.   The
Read more