65

For the sake of science [...], I intend to upload my paper, the referee report and the covering letter of the associate editor (all of whom are anonymous, BTW) on my website and on researchgate. Alongside this, I plan to upload an explanation explaining why the journal was mathematically wrong to reject my work. Besides possibly being a copyright ...


58

No, this is why the review process is anonymous... Any "reaching out", while you say it is only to find out if they did or did not review your paper (and others will think "well that's because they want an inside track"...) will put the reviewer in a difficult position whether you intend that or not. The reviewer's reputation with the journals they work ...


40

There are many different notions of quality of a paper: accessibility of the presentation, soundness of the arguments and conclusions, relevance of the research. Ideally, the level of journals only differs in Point 3. Realistically, there are some differences in Point 1 as well (ironically, I find that middle-level journal score best here, but that’s a ...


34

Actually, it is the editor's decision to accept or reject. Give an honest recommendation according to your best judgement. I suggest you make your best effort to help the author(s) improve the paper. Your recommendation to the editor can be whatever you think best. But don't give it a higher rating than you think it deserves (or lower, for that matter) as ...


32

I'm sorry about your bad experience. However, your proposed course of action makes you look petulant and childish. You're not going to make any friends or impress anyone. Trying to tell the world that the editor and referee were wrong is just a waste of your time. Everybody has misunderstood a paper at least once in their life and, sometimes, you get unlucky ...


24

There is one reason I can think of as legitimate for getting the identity of a reviewer, and it is closely related to your situation: you have a manuscript rejected and found the reviewer's comments so helpful that you'd like to ask them to collaborate and become co-author of the enhanced version of the manuscript. In contrast, In my reaching out to ...


12

Is it ever appropriate to ask such a question, and if so, when? I can't think of many instances (probably only if there's some gross misconduct). Reviewers are anonymous for a good reason. Out of sheer curiosity, I'd like to reach out to this individual to ask if they were a reviewer for this paper. Paraphrasing, curiosity killed the paper :) How about ...


12

In many experimental fields, it is possible to "generate" a plausible amount of data and get away with it (i.e. publish the data and the conclusions in a peer reviewed journal). Experiments need to be repeated independently. Otherwise, all sorts of things happen. Real fraud is probably the lowest number. Much more important are cases in which experiments ...


7

Use whatever protocol you like, but explain your protocol to the editor and authors. For example, you could include something like the following (quoting from someone else's review of one of my own papers): Throughout this review, "p.5(17)" refers to line 17 on page 5.


6

As others commented already: Nine month is not unusual in math, and this applies to journals of all levels. However, 9 month is a good time to send a new friendly reminder to the handling editor. From my experience, this seems to be the time when the editors also get impatient and start to press the assigned reviewers harder (or even proceed with one review ...


4

You have not identified any conflict of interest in your post. The managing editor can, and should, criticize your work. It seems that the colleague who invited your paper mislead you by failing to clearly state they were not actually editing the special issue. The reason you have not encountered this situation before is that most editors are not thorough ...


4

You're not being asked to find reviewers who are willing to review your paper. You're only being asked to suggest reviewers. There is no guarantee that any of the reviewers you suggest will actually be the one(s) who review your paper. Therefore you should not so much identify people who have time as you should identify people who can review your paper. If ...


4

I'm not aware of a standard, but you can always define your own notation in your report. Perhaps some journals do have a recommended standard in their reviewer instructions, but I don't remember seeing that either. If you want to go compact, I'd suggest "p1, R12" for page 1, right column (L for left), where 12 is understood to be the line number. That is, ...


3

You can always ask and they can say "no". It's surely not rude and weird; people are asked to review stuff all the time. The probability is not too low that one or more of them will say "no", but you may be lucky. In my experience, more senior people are more likely to say "no", but of course if they say "yes" they will be the more competent reviewers. And ...


3

You should submit the bugs with your review, not through Github.


3

I would recommend you have a look: If the submission is as bad as it looks, you will not have to devote much time to it anyways. Someone has to do some refereeing else nobody would referee my papers so my rule of thumb is: I referee as many papers in a year as the number of referees needed to review my work that year.


3

As a reviewer, your role is to provide sufficient information to the editor that they can make a decision about how to proceed with a manuscript (accept, accept if major amendments are made, reject). I have reviewed some manuscripts, and used many more in research. From my perspective: manuscripts should have been peer reviewed prior to submission, ...


2

I would avoid doing that, except as a last resort. The person is likely to be confused (best) or offended (bad). Try to work first through the journal itself. But also, it often takes quite a while for information about progress to filter through the system and it often takes quite a while for reviews themselves to be conducted. If it just "wanting to ...


2

I think that, ethically, you have reached the minimum. If their names are to be attached then they need to sign off on the result as published. But it may not be necessary for them to see how the sausage is made. So, I think you are fine in what you suggest. However, you should expect questions about why you made certain changes and you might, at that ...


2

Is it rude, or weird, to ask them to subreview a paper? No. There is absolutely nothing rude, weird, presumptuous, or inappropriate about asking a more senior researcher to review a paper for a conference. It is an utterly standard and expected part of your role as a PC member to ask experts to review papers. Conversely, it is an utterly standard and ...


2

One thing that would be good to know here is the exact meaning of "accept with major revisions". The emphasis may be on "accept" or on "major revisions". In many (probably most) journals I'm familiar with (I'm from statistics), a "major revision" actually means that the reviewers get the paper again and can still reject it if issues are not appropriately ...


2

Just explain the strengths and weaknesses of the paper without judging, give constructive critique where possible. Also try to be concrete, e.g. say that theorem 3.5 is not obviously true as claimed, in fact you don't see how XYZ follows trivially, instead of just saying that it is not convincing. In the end, you can give a recommendation and you could base ...


2

I find it very annoying as a reviewer when I get asked to review a paper several times as it gets submitted to different journals/conferences or, worse still, I help send it to the reject pile only to have it published elsewhere with my comments ignored. I believe you are taking excess ownership in the outcome. It's not your job to set yourself up as the ...


2

"Returned to authors with requests for changes" is a "revise" decision. That means the journal wants the authors to make certain changes (e.g., gather more data) before making a decision. After a revise decision, my experience is that acceptance is the most likely final result. Certainly a paper that's returned to the authors for revision is not going to be ...


2

If those bugs and bug-fixes are critical to your review, you should submit it with it and don't make a pull request from your official GitHub account. You still have an option of creating a one-time account and point to those issues/submit pull request fixing them in GitHub – that will not reveal your identity. If your review does not really need those bugs ...


2

Just give the editor a long list. Don't try to predict who takes a summer holiday. It's absolutely not your job to know people's schedules. And definitely don't try to research that or contact potential reviewers. Also, while it's fine that you assist with a list, it's really the editor/journal's job to get the paper reviewed. I would be a bit irked ...


2

The primary advantage of peer reviewing is that you are ahead of the researchers in your field by a margin of several months. Second advantage of getting a bad paper for review is that you get an idea "what to avoid" in your own future work. Most people do not realize this because it is not a paid service, nor there is any public acknowledgement on the paper....


1

Check out this question. You're at the "Editorial Decision" stage, and as you can see from there, the typical duration is a few workdays to a week. So more than 1 month is definitely atypical, and you should write in and ask. If you're wondering, there's a good chance the abnormal wait time is because there's more than one "editor-in-chief": the original ...


1

Let's examine the three reasons you give one by one: Reviewing would certainly cost you time. If you don't have time available, or if you need the time to do something else, then decline and give that as a reason. The editor would understand. If you do have time available, then why not? I don't find this a good reason to decline. There'll always be things ...


1

You can look at https://scirev.org/ , where people can submit there experience with different journals. Quite a few are missing (in my field) but a lot are there. A nice feature is that you can look by field / subfield and have all the things summarized in a table. If you look at electrical engineering there is a surprising number of them with fast turnover ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible