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 31149

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.

1
vote
The time for the second go-around is often the same as for the first go-around. So, if the journal allows reviewers 3 months for a review, you have to expect this much (at least) also for the review o …
answered Apr 20 '15 by Wolfgang Bangerth
3
votes
I think there is nothing inherently wrong with contacting the reviewer given that he has volunteered his name (and uncommon but commendable step). That said, you need to remain aware that that doesn't …
answered Apr 29 '15 by Wolfgang Bangerth
7
votes
The reviewers may not have understood why your approach is new or worthy. But that is not the reviewers fault, it is your failure to explain it well: if the reviewers don't understand it, other reader …
answered Apr 8 '15 by Wolfgang Bangerth
9
votes
I'm writing this in my role as an editor: if I had assigned a younger colleague as a reviewer, and said colleague asked me for the other reviews because they want to learn what others see in a paper, …
answered Jun 11 '15 by Wolfgang Bangerth
24
votes
I would not worry about the paper getting rejected one way or the other: The reviewers gave you a shorter proof, but did not suggest that the theorem is obvious or trivial. This isn't going to change …
answered Apr 26 by Wolfgang Bangerth
0
votes
It typically means that the paper has been received, has been put in the work queue of the editor, but the editor has not assigned reviewers. Or (in one system I know of), that the editor has not assi …
answered Sep 20 '17 by Wolfgang Bangerth
38
votes
I don't know about such studies, but I have served on ~20 panels to review proposals. While I'm entirely willing to believe that multiple panels will not agree on the relative ordering of proposals, I …
answered Apr 18 by Wolfgang Bangerth
9
votes
It's the editor's call, and since you have no right to get your manuscript published, you don't really have a basis to ignore the editor's request -- if that's what the editor wants, then that's what …
answered Oct 23 '17 by Wolfgang Bangerth
1
vote
It's hard to give good advice in a concise way about what makes for a good review. The thing is, one knows a good review if one sees one (and the opposite is true as well). So, with my students and po …
answered Mar 22 '15 by Wolfgang Bangerth
2
votes
I've just taken to returning two documents when reviewing papers: One is my annotated PDF (created on a tablet) where I can use both margin notes if I want to comment on things, and handwritten note …
answered Mar 18 '18 by Wolfgang Bangerth
13
votes
Many possible reasons, although there is of course no way of finding out which one applied here (if any at all): Editor E believes that, being big animals in the field, neither A nor B will have tim …
answered Jun 22 '18 by Wolfgang Bangerth
4
votes
As an editor I've occasionally done this if I had conflicting reviews that I couldn't make sense of. In a case like this, you send these reviews to a trusted friend who knows the area better and say " …
answered Oct 6 '18 by Wolfgang Bangerth
3
votes
In essence, people publish in journals for two reasons: Journals provide a relatively small number of central places where everything of interest is collected. As a consequence, it is (relatively) e …
answered Aug 31 '18 by Wolfgang Bangerth
13
votes
My reading is that the associate editor has rejected the article and it just has to be formalized by either the editorial staff or the editor-in-chief. Prepare for an email with bad news :-(
answered Jan 13 '16 by Wolfgang Bangerth
21
votes
To add to Bill's answer, most scientists would agree that it is not productive to try figuring out who a reviewer may be, and consciously avoid thinking about it too hard. I make that a point when tal …
answered May 6 '16 by Wolfgang Bangerth

15 30 50 per page