20 Comments

Go to the profile of Yasin Ghulam
Yasin Ghulam over 1 year ago

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

Go to the profile of Muhammad Naeem Nizam
Muhammad Naeem Nizam over 1 year ago

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

Go to the profile of Md. Galal Uddin
Md. Galal Uddin over 1 year ago

Reviewers are major actors for manuscript publishing.

Go to the profile of Mekhled Alzaza
Mekhled Alzaza over 1 year ago

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

Go to the profile of Aydin ashrafi
Aydin ashrafi over 1 year ago

Nice

Go to the profile of Paul Anthony C. Cordova, RMT

Peer review = Quality

Go to the profile of Israel Borokini
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

Go to the profile of SANTOSH KUMAR BHASKAR
SANTOSH KUMAR BHASKAR 8 months ago

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

Go to the profile of Sunil Kumar
Sunil Kumar over 1 year ago

Agree and impressed with Prof. David Rueda

Go to the profile of THIAGARAJAN
THIAGARAJAN over 1 year ago

good 

Go to the profile of Dr Dinesh Uthra
Dr Dinesh Uthra about 1 year ago

Quality of research paper would become more effective.

Go to the profile of LAL DEVAYANI VASUDEVAN NAIR
LAL DEVAYANI VASUDEVAN NAIR about 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

Go to the profile of Ankita awasthi
Ankita awasthi about 1 year ago

highlight the importance of peer reviewing process

Go to the profile of SUDHEESH RAVI
SUDHEESH RAVI 9 months ago

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

Go to the profile of Onaoluwa Abimbola
Onaoluwa Abimbola 8 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.

Go to the profile of Kamuyu Mwai
Kamuyu Mwai 8 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.

Go to the profile of Raghed ibrahim esmaeel

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

Go to the profile of Steven James Newton
Steven James Newton 5 months ago

Outstanding information on peer review.

Go to the profile of William T Winter
William T Winter about 2 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?

Go to the profile of Oyetoro Oyebode Stephen

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