If you need help with online teaching or other challenges in academia arising from the COVID-19 crisis, we have prepared this FAQ to get you started.
31

In my opinion, you are overthinking this. Academics do many things as part of their jobs, some highly visible, some behind the scenes; some acknowledged, some not. In addition, social norms vary by discipline, by geography, and by individual. I have thus far once acknowledged a reviewer, since their comments improved a paper of mine signficantly, more so ...


29

I do read the other reports, and other reviewers should too. A few reasons: If the editor has an author's response letter and two reviews, and the three documents say different things, then the editor will be very confused. If I see the other reviewer and the author disagree, then I try to be a tie-breaker to help the editor. Authors are not in a place ...


10

It is probably best to be as informed as possible at that stage. There is likely no need to repeat comments of others. It might also inform you of things you missed. However, it does reduce the independence of reviews. If that is important to you, the journal, or the field, you should probably avoid it and deal exclusively with the paper itself. So, the ...


10

For recommending "minor" revisions, perhaps you are overreacting. But a more important question is whether they are just a taker or also give back to the scientific community. Do you have any knowledge that they refuse to do reviews? That would be a more important reason for declining the review. But, you are providing a service to the journal, to the ...


9

Your call, of course. Either would be a step forward. But consider how much the revision will actually improve the paper. If a lot, then it is to your advantage to just do it, no matter where you submit. All suggestions should be, at least, considered for revision, as usual. And a new submission will take its own time, of course. And a "top journal in the ...


9

Insufficient novelty is definitely good enough reason to reject a paper - otherwise for example I can just repackage the proof of Pythagoras's theorem from the nearest mathematics textbook I can get my hands on, and publish that (I can publish that multiple times too). To publish your results you need to convince the editor that the result actually matters. ...


6

Whether you should comply or not should be ruled by asking yourself if doing so will improve your work. If you come to the conclusion that it would improve the paper, you really should follow the advice. Most other considerations such as if it is a lot of work should be very low (if at all) on your list. As a self-confident researcher the quality of your ...


6

Yes. It's an anecdote but I got a permanent position pretty much because I had a paper under revision at a very top journal. It still doesn't count as much as a published paper, though. One thing you can do is ask the editor if she/he would be ok with you mentioning it in a job application and whether you can pass on contact details so that the job ...


6

MathSciNet reviews are not the kind of reviews an editor would get for a submitted paper. Rather, what is posted on MathSciNet is more of a summary of the article and someone putting it into the context of the broader field -- something that would help a reader understand not only what the paper provides, but why it is relevant. As such, the authors of these ...


5

It is implicitly assumed that you have interpreted the AE's tone/intention correctly- however, that may still be worth re-evaluating, along with someone familiar with the field and journal. It is also assumed that the primary objection from reviewers is about the performance of the proposed method/approach, not its technical soundness or viability. Now, top ...


5

Waiting for them seems like a lost cause. Unless you have signed some release or given them copyright, the paper is yours. You can submit it as you like. But submitting it minutes after notifying them of a withdrawal might be hasty. A few days wait is suggested. But they don't seem to have a very good record of corresponding with authors.


4

I am an associate editor for two journals, and although the situation is fairly new, I expect to have no substantive change in the time for me to handle papers. The reasons for this are: Pretty much everything is handled purely electronically anyway, so there's no physical interaction to be disrupted. Reviewing is typically a sparse activity by people who ...


4

I can't speak to your specific review, but I can comment at the higher level and give an example. When a reviewer is asking for a real-world scenario, they are typically asking for an actual situation when the proposed approach will apply and could improve existing work. The idea behind this type of request is to avoid seeing a large number of papers ...


4

Rule of thumb number 1 for replying to referees: Never say "no" if it can be avoided. If I had your case, I would include a discussion (a few lines) of the inclusion of said parameter, and highlight it as a topic for a future article. Then I would thank the referee profusely for giving this suggestion, that it would be a challenging thing to do, and that ...


3

Tangential, but I'm guessing that you'll be interested: it is pretty rare for reviewers to explicitly refer to another reviewer's report in their comments. "The authors have not addressed my comments #1, #5 and #9" is very common; "the authors have not addressed the comments #2 and #4 by the other reviewer" is not. That said, this does not mean the reviewer ...


3

Open your review with something along the lines of: I reviewed an earlier version of this work (entitled previous_title), which was submitted to conference_name. The authors have since added a substantial amount of new material and have taken into account some of my previous suggestions. However, many of the issues I previously raised have not been ...


3

I am not in the habit of thanking reviewers, not because i dont appreciate the effort that they put in, but rather because it is anonymous, it feels fruitless to thank someone whose name I do not know. No one gets credit there, and it feels superfluous.


2

Scopus is quality-curated, i.e. getting indexed by it is not meaningless. However, it is not as selective as the Science Citation Index, which remains the gold standard. Therefore you are better off publishing in a SCI-indexed journal if you can. Arguing with your professor is unlikely to be a good idea in any case - they have much more experience than ...


2

If a journal wanted to impose such a rule they would most likely state it plainly. But I think that is very unlikely. It isn't the qualifications of the authors of a paper that make it important, but what the paper actually has to offer. Of course, editors like to know that the authors know what they are writing about, but that is the job of the reviewers to ...


2

First, reviewing papers is a service to the community more than it is a service to the authors. Let’s assume for argument’s sake that this author is an evil, selfish person who doesn’t deserve any favors from you. Does it still make sense to deprive the community of your feedback about this author’s paper, which may still be a good paper that makes a ...


2

From the sounds of it your paper is not accepted, the referee has recommended acceptance but the editor must finally accept it before it's formally accepeted (at which point the only changes allowed would be formtting issues and typos). As you have minor edits it maybe the referee thinks the changes are small and thus may not want to read the paper again, in ...


2

I would review the paper and point out that the very practical limitations of the work are not clearly stated. The ultimate goal of this research is clearly to construct an autonomous weapon system which can function on the battlefield. Now, all warfare is subject to law. This includes the principle of proportionality. The principle of proportionality ...


2

If you genuinely think that you can make a compelling case that, with the revisions you will make, the paper is important enough for the top journal, then resubmitting the paper is probably a good idea. I had this happen to me once with a submission to a top journal, where all the referees asked for revisions, and I also got a note from the associate editor ...


1

The message is vague, but check the text the referee has highlighted. Chances are you can see something wrong. The word "typeset" here could indicate a typesetting error - for example, perhaps you forgot to include a reference that the text cites (this makes LaTeX go [??]). Or it could just mean there's a spelling error, an ambiguous sentence, etc. Either ...


1

Scientific publishing and peer review, no matter what anyone tells you, is very unfair. Therefore, double-blind vs. single-blind (or open) peer review really depends on which choice you think tip the scales in your favor (or at least tip it less in favor of rejection). The pro of double-blind review is that nobody will judge you based on who you are, your ...


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