21 Comments

Thumb default avatar
Yasin Ghulam almost 2 years ago

In the whole scientific community, the Reviewers are the more important in boasting and rising the reasons to implements the new inventions.

Thumb default avatar
Muhammad Naeem Nizam almost 2 years ago

Reviewers are playing the most important role in advancement of scientific innovations.

Thumb default avatar
Md. Galal Uddin almost 2 years ago

Reviewers are major actors for manuscript publishing.

Thumb default avatar
Mekhled Alzaza over 1 year ago

The  reviewers are the magic touch in the process of publication .

Thumb default avatar
Aydin ashrafi over 1 year ago

Nice

Thumb 20180101 002334

Peer review = Quality

Thumb default avatar
Israel Borokini over 1 year ago

Wait a minute: review three papers per one manuscript you submitted? Which scientific convention is that? I peer-review for lots of journals and get invitation to review papers a lot too, but I am hearing of this "rule" for the first time

Thumb default avatar
SANTOSH KUMAR BHASKAR 11 months ago

it seems its not  A GENERAL RULE  BUT A REVIEWERS EXPERIENCE  AND WISH

Thumb default avatar
Sunil Kumar over 1 year ago

Agree and impressed with Prof. David Rueda

Thumb default avatar
THIAGARAJAN over 1 year ago

good 

Thumb default avatar
Dr Dinesh Uthra over 1 year ago

Quality of research paper would become more effective.

Thumb default avatar
LAL DEVAYANI VASUDEVAN NAIR over 1 year ago

well said, thankless job. but we require every author to voluntarily take up this thankless job for the sake of quality publication which can seriously impact the way in which scientific community do future researches

Thumb default avatar
Ankita awasthi over 1 year ago

highlight the importance of peer reviewing process

Thumb default avatar
SUDHEESH RAVI about 1 year ago

At least one paper should be reviewed in a month is the target for the commitment to assure the quality of a paper.

Thumb default avatar
Onaoluwa Abimbola 11 months ago

This is useful to me as a newbie. Learning that I should aim to review at least three papers for every paper I plan to publish is a great goal to set.

Thumb kamuyu mwai
Kamuyu Mwai 10 months ago

Though peer reviewing is healthy as far as scientific publication is concerned, it shouldn't be used to set limitations as far as Science is concerned. Science is diverse & dynamic & there is a lot that ain't known out there but very credible.

Thumb default avatar
Raghed ibrahim esmaeel 10 months ago

peer review always needs the experience to make sure the quality in reviewing. 

Thumb default avatar
Steven James Newton 8 months ago

Outstanding information on peer review.

Thumb default avatar
William T Winter 5 months ago

A few  years ago I was asked to review a paper where the corresponding author also was the journal editor who had requested my review. I accepted and found that this author was attempting to include a previously used figure of their's with only one additional line of new data and no reference to the older published paper. How did I find this? From memory, as I was also a reviewer of the first paper, which had been submitted to a different journal. I rejected the second paper and identified the offending figure as plagiarism. Ultimately, the second paper, over my objection, was published. Subsequently, I was dropped as a reviewer by that journal for a few years. Comments?

Thumb oyetoro oyebode stephen

Quite insightful and inspiring.......Thank you Prof. Rueda.

Thumb default avatar
Natalia Palii 3 months ago

Interesting proportion: 1 published paper to 3 peer reviewed