Search type Search syntax
Tags [tag]
Exact "words here"
Author user:1234
user:me (yours)
Score score:3 (3+)
score:0 (none)
Answers answers:3 (3+)
answers:0 (none)
isaccepted:yes
hasaccepted:no
inquestion:1234
Views views:250
Sections title:apples
body:"apples oranges"
URL url:"*.example.com"
Favorites infavorites:mine
infavorites:1234
Status closed:yes
duplicate:no
migrated:no
wiki:no
Types is:question
is:answer
Exclude -[tag]
-apples
For more details on advanced search visit our help page
Results tagged with Search options user 28830

On the evaluation of work (typically, a publication or grant proposal) by the author's peers. This includes: refereeing, which is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication in a journal or conference; peer evaluation of teaching skills; peer review of research grant proposals; and post-publication review of a book or article, as is common in the field of mathematics.

5
votes
I fully agree that 12 referees is too many. 2 to max 4 referees is fine. More referees will indeed leave the authors with conflicting comments, and does not contribute to the quality of the review.
answered Aug 19 '15 by Danny Ruijters
2
votes
You might address this as a 'return on investment' type of problem. Your investment: you will need to put in some time in reviewing the articles, writing down your findings, perhaps communicating wit …
answered Sep 1 '17 by Danny Ruijters
13
votes
I think that two explanations are possible: (At least on of) the reviewers did not agree to review the paper again. This can happen, as a reviewer you are not obligated to review a revision. The sta …
answered Sep 11 '15 by Danny Ruijters
1
vote
A submission to a new journal is considered a fresh start. So in that case, you would speak of 'a submission', regardless whether an earlier version of the manuscript was rejected at another journal. …
answered May 1 '15 by Danny Ruijters
7
votes
Things vary a bit, depending on the field you are in. Some fields only review and publish abstracts (e.g., medicine), in some fields conferences are more important than journal publications (e.g., com …
answered Feb 2 '15 by Danny Ruijters
7
votes
In a single blind review process, the author names are not hidden for the reviewers, but the reviewer names are hidden for the authors. In a double blind review process, the author names are hidden f …
answered Sep 6 '16 by Danny Ruijters
28
votes
When you are being asked to peer-review a paper authored by somebody you have collaborated with (or are collaborating with), you should be aware that you are on a slippery slope. The very least you s …
answered Jan 27 '17 by Danny Ruijters
54
votes
A simple rule of thumb can help to handle reviewer comments: "The reviewers are always right, even when they are wrong." This means that when reviewers make wrong assumptions or draw wrong conclusion …
answered Jul 22 '15 by Danny Ruijters
4
votes
The same TA pointed out flaws (of fundamental nature, for example F = mv instead of F = ma) in the model, and once corrected allowed me to obtain the results shown in the paper. The fact that aft …
answered Nov 7 '17 by Danny Ruijters
0
votes
Of course you could send your feedback anonymously to the mentioned professor, using an anonymous email service. In that case you would not breach any guidelines as you would not have revealed yoursel …
answered Feb 27 '15 by Danny Ruijters