Peer review for scientific journals – my

perspective Roger P. Hellens

The History“The peer-review process is a turf battle with the ultimate prize of the knowledge, science or doctrine being published. On the one side, we have the writers and originators of ideas, on the other, we have the editors and critics. But it was not always so.” Ray Spier Trends in Biotechnology (2002) 20:357-358 Ishap bin Ali Al Rahwi (CE 854–931)

Should I accept a request?The system relies on good will – you wont get paid

As a guide review 2-3x the number of MS you submit

My in-box today….

Check the Abstract• Area of expertise• Not a collaborator• Not at the same institution• Have time to complete on time

• Say YES

If you decline…...• Conflict of interest

• Not your area

• Editor is a colleague

• Say NO and nominate someone

Read the abstract and get the point of the paper

Read the figures…........

…..and the fig ledgend

Read the result to see if the data is solid

If the data is solid read the whole thing

Wait a bit and read again, making comments• Accept

• Reject minor edits

• Reject major edits (encourage to resubmit)

• Reject

Accept

Reject but…..• Clarify methods• Clarify fig legends• Slight change in text• Remove providence• Colour schemes

Reject BUT…...• Sections rewritten• New experiments• Data re-analised• Statistics

REJECT.• Be constructive

• Highlight error

• Identify false claims

What did the other reviewers are?• After the editor has made their

decision…

• See what Reviewer 1 and 2 said...