One way to resolve this would be that your advisor refused to review the manuscript and suggests you as a possible reviewer. Then the editor can decide what to do. Do not overthink why your advisor was chosen first. He has been around for a longer time and is therefore more known to editors.
I would prefer this procedure to a simple 'yes' to the request (...
If your alarm bells are ringing, but the offered position is attractive, then there are ways to check it out without causing problems.
Example: The person who's name is on this invite will have contact information outside this particular email. A phone number or email that you don't get from this email, for example, but from their institution or some such. ...
Is that normal, or should that ring some bells?
It is normal to have
received an e-mail inviting me to join the program committee
even better that it is for
a well-established and renowned conference
and that it
Personally, I would have already accepted the invitation.
However, I do not directly know the guy writing to me
Ask yourself whether it is worth it for a "minor point". But you can ask the editor for advice. And, as you suggest, you can also just give your best advice for the fix. You don't need to speak badly of the other reviewer to do so. Just say what you think the authors should do to make the paper better.
Conflicting reviews are common enough.
I have served on several search committees lately for faculty members, and, honestly, I haven't seen one CV structure the peer review section in this fashion.
In my personal opinion, doing so looks like CV padding. We all know that the reviewing process can have multiple read throughs and comments, so I do not think it is necessary to include the number of ...
As one of the people who writes reviews in the form of annotated PDF files + a summary review, I think I'm in a good position to answer this question :-)
At least in my case, annotations in the PDF are often of relatively small points. I expect you to address all points raised in annotations, but you don't have to prove it to me by mentioning them ...
Don't overthink this. Write a concise and polite reply. Here is an example that is not perfect but should do it.
Dear Professor ...,
we recently received the reviews for our paper ...., which we
submitted to the journal ...., of which you are a/the editor of.
While we found the comments by reviewer 1 very helpful, we noticed
that review ...
It is perfectly acceptable to email your paper to another researcher, and ask if they have any comments or suggestions.
It would also be perfectly acceptable for him to not reply. If he does, the reply might be something short like "Thanks for sending, looks like a nice piece of work!"
If you do write, I'd recommend you do the following:
Keep your email ...
Normally the answer to such requests is yes. It is good experience. But the review may wind up being in the name of the advisor. He was contacted as a more senior academic, I think, and the editor didn't know of his lack of specific knowledge.
However, since the work is related to your own, it might be worth letting the editor know, directly or, preferably,...
Reviewers set their own schedule subject, more or less, to deadlines set by the editor. Some might use holidays to work on reviews. Others might rather avoid anything that looks like work. The "end of January" may be a guess or may be more firm, depending on the deadline request sent to reviewers. Perhaps a reviewer has made a "promise" to be done by then.
Don't ask multiple editors. Ask the one who's most appropriate. Who is most appropriate depends on your query, but the obvious candidate is the editor-in-chief.
Emailing several different editors is kind of pointless because they're all subordinate to the editor-in-chief anyway and probably will defer to the EiC's decision.
Many think it is unethical to have your coauthor to review the paper; many think it is not.
Many journals and associations have strict guidelines on this matter; I suggest you to take a look at the answers to Conflict of interest as a referee, especially @DavidRicherby's one, and possibly also to other questions with the tag conflict-of-interest. In any ...
Educated guess of what happened: they invited reviewers (which automatically updates the status even if the reviewers don't agree to review). Some/many of the reviewers then declined to review, giving reasons that made the editor decide to desk reject your paper.
I'm not a mathematician, but from what I've heard, 4.5 months is not a particularly long wait ...
I'm not a lawyer, but their definition of "preprint" says:
This is the author's own write-up of research results and analysis that has not been peer reviewed, nor had any other value added to it by a publisher (such as formatting, copy-editing, technical enhancements, and the like).
Note all of these - formatting, copy-editing, technical enhancements - ...
There're several questions in the OP:
I am a bit startled that the editor has given a specific time of completion, rather than just say that it's still pending. Could there be any specific reason?
The most likely reason is because they invited a reviewer requesting a review by [deadline], and the reviewer agreed to review. This isn't a guarantee that the ...
One thing I haven't seen in any of the other answers so far, is to politely tell the editor that you cannot review this paper. The editor will send it to a different referee, who likely will be able to get access to a computer that had Windows.
I'm reviewing a manuscript that is protocol focussed...
Part of the peer review requirements are to test the ...
Others have given good advice regarding how you should respond to the review. But to add a little regarding your concerns:
I don’t understand why the journal contacted him and not me to review that paper though I was the corresponding author? I feel very bad that even though it was my work the journals did not send me the paper for review. What do ...
I wouldn't jeopardise the response. I would neatly adress all the points raised by the referee as usual in a single letter addressed to the editor, clearly indicating when you respond to criticisms or suggestions only stated in the pdf report by quoting or grouping them (depending on their importance, as usual).
.exe does not always mean a windows executable. .NET applications have the .exe extention by default, so your application may be executable with mono name.exe.
If it really is a Windows application, that's likely also fine. wine, installable on MacOS, Linux and FreeBSD is able to run most Windows applications just fine.