Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange
52

No such study exists. You have to realize that the current model of funding research through grants is rather recent. Fifty years ago, research was funded with recurring credits: a lab/researcher got a fixed amount of money each year to do research as they saw fit. Only applied researchers got industrial grants to develop precise new applications, but this ...


51

If you think you see this often, imagine how much more often journal editors see it. So sticking to ethics is fine. Journal editors see this often enough to know when to reject a review because of it. You are not generally under threat of rejection if you decline to cite a reference. The worst that can happen is that the reviewer rejects your article, but ...


45

You should apologize and admit you were wrong. Don't try to defend your actions. It is a head-slapping error. Send the apology to everyone. Offer to immediately withdraw the submission if anyone desires it. Ask for advice going forward. That should cover it. All authors need to be on the same page for actions on their work.


42

(1) Your co-authors are correct in that you should strive to minimise friction in the review process. (2) Commenters here are correct that you should stick to the facts of the situation and not risk attempting to attribute speculative motivations, or identities, to the reviewers. (3) You are correct that you shouldn't reference papers that have no apparent ...


38

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 am quite convinced that they will in general agree on which proposals are "good" and which are "not good". In any given round, a panel (at the National ...


25

Does "peer review" mean you have to re-write the material, or just point out where the flaws may be and the author is meant to sort them? I suggest it is the latter, so point them out and expect the author to edit / correct or justify what they meant.


23

Getting a review in two days late for a journal article is pretty common. I wouldn't worry about anything less than being a week late. For conferences, deadlines can be tighter, but 2 days is nothing. Ideally you would let the editor know your review will be a couple of days late, but even if you didn't, it is not the end of the world.


22

Yes, you should point them out. You should point out solutions to problems when you know what the solution is but, at the end of the day, it's the authors' responsibility to write their paper, not yours.


21

There is another aspect to the question at hand. A random assignment of monies to projects can be expected to fail because the system in place, whatever it is, induces certain behaviors. One wants to design a system so that positive behavior is encouraged and negative behavior discouraged. In a system of peer review those seeking funds are induced to give ...


9

I wouldn't even ask. Just "tell". Send a short email saying you will send the review a week later (more time than needed, don't want to come back in 2 days again). Don't phrase the email in a manner that requires a response from the editor--tell, don't ask (cut the back and forth chatter). If the editor wants/needs to pull the paper, he will do so. But ...


6

Unfortunately, I also made the experience that reviewers often try to recommend their articles for citation. Often this allows me actually to identify who the reviewers are based on the suggestions for reviewers I made when submitting the manuscript. Therefore, I think this is no good practice at all, as it undermines the actual review process (but also ...


6

First, I'll take the position that if a paper can be salvaged, then the author should have the opportunity to try to salvage it. However, some situations are beyond help. Situations that call for rejection The paper is out of scope for the journal/conference. But usually an editor will recognize this and send it back. The results of the paper follow ...


5

Short answer: Such hard evidence probably does not currently exist, but finally a random "funding lottery" scheme has been implemented in New Zealand and is being studied. However, the sample size is small, and it may until at least 2026 before real data is obtained. Why there is a lack of evidence: In the RAND report Alternatives to Peer Review in ...


5

You can send another reminder, but I would wait a bit. It is an uncomfortable thing to do, and my own level of discomfort with sending such notes usually gets outweighed by my impatience at around the 2-month mark. So, if you don't hear anything back by early June, you might write again. But different journals and different fields have different typical ...


4

I think the statement is very clear. Wether your literature research was incomplete or the reviewer just wants two of his own papers cited once more, we cannot tell. Make sure you can exclude the first possibility, then try guessing, and either be bold in your rebuttal letter, or cite some more. (If the reviewer gave no hint to specific references, I'd ...


4

SciRev comes to mind – is this the sort of thing you're looking for?


4

One at a time: Why are there 5 reviewers instead of the usual 2-3? There're many possibilities, the two most likely of which are 1) they routinely invite five reviewers because historically, not all of them will accept. This time they did. 2) Some of the first reviews received were poor (your description makes it seem like so, but I don't know the details) ...


4

You should apologize, but even more importantly, you should understand why it was a mistake, and show that you understand why, so that your coauthors know that you will not make the same mistake in the future. if various authors of a rejected article resubmit it separately to a distinct journal without coordinating with the other authors, there will be ...


4

"posting some related questions" -- is that a typo? Should it be posing? Either way I'm not quite sure what it means. However: It does not seem you are in danger of getting the paper rejected. You should write a polite response letter, list all of the changes suggested by the reviewer(s), respond to each one (e.g., "Done." or "We opted not to do this ...


3

If the editor decided not to send the manuscript out for peer review, then the decision is almost certainly a desk rejection. In theory, I suppose it might have gone out for peer review and just been an unusually speed process, but in practice that is extremely unlikely. The canonical journal workflow question may provide more detail if you wish.


3

When I ask for an extension, I usually ask for a substantial one, i.e. one week not just 2 days. This way, if I need more than 2 days for some unforeseen reason I don’t have to ask for another extension. Moreover if the editor is really tight she/he can negotiate down to 2 days and everybody is happy. Dear editor, Due to unforeseen circumstances I can ...


3

A story (and many other intersting ones) I once heard from an editorial board member of Physical Review Letters, who gave an overview talk on the editorial process of that journal at a conference, was that sometimes it happens that the reviewer switches sides and becomes a collaborator of the authors they reviewed initially. While at first this sound ...


3

As a referee of a scientific or engineering paper, you should recommend rejection if you do not believe that (1) the paper makes a contribution that is worthy of publication and/or (2) the paper is not a good fit with the quality or mission of the specific journal. Sometimes referees want to be encouraging and therefore suggest major revisions for papers ...


2

It is only three weeks since you submitted the revised version. The editor may not yet have looked at your submission and made a decision on the submission (whether to invite the reviewers to review your revised submission or other decision deemed necessary). The editor may be handling several manuscripts (and may have many other responsibilities) and may ...


2

You can always ask but from my experience you will just a get a copy&paste answer with the status from the journal website. Putting too much pressure (many emails) on the editor might also have negative effects on the outcome of the decision (if the manuscript is a borderline case). Concerning your specific situtation with the grant application: You ...


2

Are you sure that you pressed the "submit" button? Usually it is a draft before submission. Otherwise it might mean that some sort of manual approval of an admin person of the journal is needed before the submission is further processed (e.g. it is not "fully" sumitted until they have checked that you are within a certain wordcount/format/etc).


2

I recommend that you do the following: Make a best effort to look up the most recent articles related to the parts of the article that the reviewer critiqued in their other comments. Most likely, their other comments would suggest the areas that they are most concerned with. Before you complete your revisions, write a direct email to the editor that is ...


2

Although it's arguably dependent on field, 10 months is well past the time it should take to be able to provide a status update. I remember reading this story about a woman who was bedridden for years. A doctor eventually examined her and found nothing wrong at all. Asked what the problem was, the woman said a previous doctor had left instructions for her ...


2

3 weeks is sufficiently long to ask for an update, especially if precedent indicates the manuscript is sent for review "immediately". I can't tell from your description who to approach, but presumably either the managing editor or the associate editor would be OK.


2

This will only be a supplement to the answer here of user106886. That answer discusses an interpretation of the actions of political actors. However, not all funding is from the government, so I'll write here about another option: private funding. Back during the Renaissance, artists and scientists were funded by patrons, often kings and princes, who ...


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