Popular Content
Cookies
We use cookies to ensure the functionality of our website, to personalize content and advertising, to provide social media features, and to analyze our traffic. If you allow us to do so, we also inform our social media, advertising and analysis partners about your use of our website. You can decide for yourself which categories you want to deny or allow. Please note that based on your settings not all functionalities of the site are available.
Further information can be found in our privacy policy.
Cookie Control
Customise your preferences for any tracking technology
The following allows you to customize your consent preferences for any tracking technology used to help us achieve the features and activities described below. To learn more about how these trackers help us and how they work, refer to the cookie policy. You may review and change your preferences at any time.
These trackers are used for activities that are strictly necessary to operate or deliver the service you requested from us and, therefore, do not require you to consent.
These trackers help us to deliver personalized marketing content and to operate, serve and track ads.
These trackers help us to deliver personalized marketing content to you based on your behaviour and to operate, serve and track social advertising.
These trackers help us to measure traffic and analyze your behaviour with the goal of improving our service.
These trackers help us to provide a personalized user experience by improving the quality of your preference management options, and by enabling the interaction with external networks and platforms.
Recent Comments
Such a timely topic, just received the reviewers comments on a review paper I submitted some time ago! I wouldn't say it is the worst review I have ever received, but it is definitely not the best. Summary of the paper: a review paper on a topic which is not often looked at, from a particular angle. Giving an overview of various methods used to tackle the given problem and their challenges, but focusing and elaborating on a particular one.
My paper got peer-reviewed by 4 reviewers. 2 of them gave some point-by-point corrections, 2 of them were more general, borderline harsh and not very constructive at points. 1 of them kindly requested me to cite 18 (eighteen!) papers (with one author in common...), none of them being fully relevant to the topic of the review. 1 of them said they found some parts of the review boring (without stating how I should jazz them up), 1 of them said the manuscript should be revised for grammar and sentence construction (without giving an example of a "bad" sentence).
Overall I think that although some of the received comments were fair and pointed at areas I could improve on the paper, some of them could be of higher quality, to avoid the "what do you mean" questions and leave me (and everyone in my shoes) with a feeling of "OK, I know exactly what I have to do to improve my manuscript". I believe that the sandwich method of giving feedback which is usually applied to children/students (stating a good point, followed by a bad point, concluding with another good point) should also be applied when peer-reviewing. Avoiding being bitter, mean or pushing our own agendas, but focusing on being constructive, fair and clear on our points for improvement towards the person asking for feedback, can help towards increasing the quality of reviews and decreasing the mentality of "payback" for every bad review we have had in our lives.
Very interesting indeed, thank you very much Ruth!
Such a timely topic, just received the reviewers comments on a review paper I submitted some time ago! I wouldn't say it is the worst review I have ever received, but it is definitely not the best. Summary of the paper: a review paper on a topic which is not often looked at, from a particular angle. Giving an overview of various methods used to tackle the given problem and their challenges, but focusing and elaborating on a particular one.
My paper got peer-reviewed by 4 reviewers. 2 of them gave some point-by-point corrections, 2 of them were more general, borderline harsh and not very constructive at points. 1 of them kindly requested me to cite 18 (eighteen!) papers (with one author in common...), none of them being fully relevant to the topic of the review. 1 of them said they found some parts of the review boring (without stating how I should jazz them up), 1 of them said the manuscript should be revised for grammar and sentence construction (without giving an example of a "bad" sentence).
Overall I think that although some of the received comments were fair and pointed at areas I could improve on the paper, some of them could be of higher quality, to avoid the "what do you mean" questions and leave me (and everyone in my shoes) with a feeling of "OK, I know exactly what I have to do to improve my manuscript". I believe that the sandwich method of giving feedback which is usually applied to children/students (stating a good point, followed by a bad point, concluding with another good point) should also be applied when peer-reviewing. Avoiding being bitter, mean or pushing our own agendas, but focusing on being constructive, fair and clear on our points for improvement towards the person asking for feedback, can help towards increasing the quality of reviews and decreasing the mentality of "payback" for every bad review we have had in our lives.
Thanks for your answer Ruth! I am actually very surprised myself on how such an irrelevant reference list made it past the editor.... Revisions are going ok, I think I found the best way to answer to the reviewrs comments!
Such a timely topic, just received the reviewers comments on a review paper I submitted some time ago! I wouldn't say it is the worst review I have ever received, but it is definitely not the best. Summary of the paper: a review paper on a topic which is not often looked at, from a particular angle. Giving an overview of various methods used to tackle the given problem and their challenges, but focusing and elaborating on a particular one.
My paper got peer-reviewed by 4 reviewers. 2 of them gave some point-by-point corrections, 2 of them were more general, borderline harsh and not very constructive at points. 1 of them kindly requested me to cite 18 (eighteen!) papers (with one author in common...), none of them being fully relevant to the topic of the review. 1 of them said they found some parts of the review boring (without stating how I should jazz them up), 1 of them said the manuscript should be revised for grammar and sentence construction (without giving an example of a "bad" sentence).
Overall I think that although some of the received comments were fair and pointed at areas I could improve on the paper, some of them could be of higher quality, to avoid the "what do you mean" questions and leave me (and everyone in my shoes) with a feeling of "OK, I know exactly what I have to do to improve my manuscript". I believe that the sandwich method of giving feedback which is usually applied to children/students (stating a good point, followed by a bad point, concluding with another good point) should also be applied when peer-reviewing. Avoiding being bitter, mean or pushing our own agendas, but focusing on being constructive, fair and clear on our points for improvement towards the person asking for feedback, can help towards increasing the quality of reviews and decreasing the mentality of "payback" for every bad review we have had in our lives.