Read on Twitter
I just turned in my 100th manuscript review!!!
To celebrate, here are a few guiding thoughts about reviewing that I use:
1. Hide the authors' names for the first read-through to prevent bias in terms of seniority, university, gender, nationality... Focus on the science.
1/8
To celebrate, here are a few guiding thoughts about reviewing that I use:
1. Hide the authors' names for the first read-through to prevent bias in terms of seniority, university, gender, nationality... Focus on the science.
1/8
2. Junior scientists should review, initially alongside someone with experience. Willie Swanson and @AquadroChip did this with me, and it was valuable experience. I, in turn, have found it rewarding to co-review with members of my lab.
2/8
2/8
3. If a problem affects the main conclusions, make explicitly clear demands in the *first* review that solve the problem. Otherwise, it takes several back-and-forth reviews, and that's a waste of time for everyone.
3/8
3/8
4. Make constructive criticisms. Don't be mean, but do be firm when a concern is crucial for the study. Also, tell the authors what they did well.
4/8
4/8
5. You are not being asked to suggest future experiments, unless they're crucial to the main conclusions. It's not your job to demand cool followups.
5/8
5/8
6. Be upfront with the editors about blindspots in your expertise.
6/8
6/8
7. Clarity and accessibility are important. If a paper is confusing, the authors need to know sooner rather than later.
7/8
7/8
8. We should all do our part. Try to review at least 3 papers for each you submit as corresponding author.
8/8
8/8
