Number One Tip to Peer Review
By: Debesh Choudhury
Tags: Writing, Research, Publication, Number One Tip, Peer Review

Number One Tip | Peer Review

Number One Tip to Peer Review

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

Peer review is indispensable for research publishing. Peer review seems neglected in online writing platforms. If the online writing and publishing community have to strive, they must adopt a systematic peer review system, process, and policy.

The online writing and publishing community must adopt a systematic peer review system, process, and policy

As the number of online publications increases rapidly, the number of reviewers also increases naturally. I am curious to know what norms these reviewers follow while reviewing, accepting, and rejecting the submitted articles. On Medium, we generally call these submissions stories.

I started my peer-reviewing life during 2002

I remember when my research supervisor Professor Mitsuo Takeda forwarded an email to review a research paper for a peer-reviewed journal of SPIE, the international society for optics and photonics.

At that time, I didn’t have any prior experience in reviewing a research paper. My supervisor, Takeda Sensei (as people respectfully address a professor or doctor in Japan), had kindly taught me the basics of peer-reviewing.

Over the years, I reviewed a large number of research papers in journals at SPIE, Optical Society of America, Springer, IEEE, and many local and international conferences.

I learned a lot while peer-reviewing research papers

Peer-reviewing of research papers is a tedious job, and it is also time-consuming. Although the reviewers don’t get any monetary gain, the experience gives back a lot to augment their learning and professional development.

The role of the peer-reviewers is pivotal, and the responsibility is enormous. The decision of a reviewer is critical to control the quality of the journals. It also contributes to the growth of the research community at large.

The most important tip for reviewing is unique

My professor told me categorically that a reviewer should not (he later changed it to “must not”) reject a submission without giving appropriate reasons.

A reviewer can accept a submission as it is with short descriptive qualifications why the submitted manuscript is recommended for acceptance. But a reviewer should not or must not reject a submission without describing appropriate reasons.

Don’t reject an article without giving a valid reason

After I started submitting articles (stories) to so-called top-ranking publications, I am surprised to notice that most of these publications either have a broken review policy or a dysfunctional review system.

If you are a reviewer of any of the publications here or elsewhere over the Internet, I wonder if you could adopt a sensible review policy of providing a rather descriptive review for rejection. This can open an opportunity for the writers to revise and improve future submissions.

My number one tip for reviewing reads like this

You already got the tip in the above paragraphs. I wish to reiterate the point more explicitly so that it can arouse your writing conscience.

Never reject a submitted article (story) without providing a short descriptive review containg suggestive points to surmount the shorcommings and improve the article.

Please accept my points as a tip to bring a real peer-review system to online publications. I admit that it may require some additional time, which is scarce to all of us. I can guarantee you that once you adopt this reviewing technique, you will develop a stronger and more empowered online writing community than ever.