Peer-review training for scientific researchers

What advice do you have for peer reviewers?

Jillian Buriak: I would say, you can’t digest the whole paper all at once starting from the title and going to the abstract. What I think is a nice way is kind of getting a map before you get on the road and start driving. The map tells you where you’re going, gives you a sense of the landmarks along the way. Skim through and look at the figures. Figures are kind of the big landmarks, the things you want to see along the way. And then maybe go to the conclusions. That gives you a sense of where the paper’s going. At that point, the thinking of the authors, the concept of the project has been framed.

Peter License: Be thorough. Be clear. Leave any personal baggage at the door before you even pick up the paper.

Vivian Yam: The reviews are meant are constructive challenges to the authors, to help them to improve, to fix the missing gaps, the missing pieces and so on. So the goal is to be constructive.

Kirk Schanze: The key point is to have the scope, the quality, the significance and the originality work and communicate that in a thoughtful, positive way to an author.

Paul Weiss: The referee’s job isn’t to make a decision publish or not, it’s really to provide their wisdom and expertise to the editor.

William Tolman: We really appreciate input on what you as a viewer think about the significance and importance of the work, in addition to the more technical aspects.

J. Justin Gooding: I think when you review a paper you should answer two key questions for yourself: can this paper be good enough to be accepted in ACS senses, and how can we make it better so it will the best paper it can be?

Prashant Kamat: The tendancy is to do it very quickly, so my advice for reviewers is take a break.

Carolyn Bertozzi: I always would encourage new reviewers to take your time with a paper and think about all the time the author put into writing that paper and try and give back your time, as well.

Kirk Schanze: Meeting with editors or authors at conferences and talking about the reviewing process can also be a useful way to learn.

Vivian Yam: They have to be polite and impartial, and they also have to watch out for the scientific ethics, particularly if there’s a possible conflict of interest, they should declare.

Peter License: A good review gives you really important insight. It gives you critical evaluation of the excellence of your work. If it just says oh, yeah, this work is very nice, please publish as is, then that’s a terrible review. Think about the feelings of the author because the decision on his paper might be really quite important for his career strategy and also publication strategy.

Tell us about your experience as a reviewer.

Jillian Buriak: When I was a young assistant professor, I got a paper from a big Nobel Lauriat from ACS flagship journal and I just thought, “Wow, this is pretty neat.” So you’re seeing what this person considers to be there best work, what goes to an ACS journal, and I get to review it before anybody else does.

J. Justin Gooding: The very first paper I ever got given to review was by a very, very prominent author, and the paper was terrible. As a young post-op not really sure what to do, trying to justify how it could possibly reject this paper, and sort of wondering whether they were going to come end my life later that night.

What is it like as an author to get a review?

Carolyn Bertozzi: All of us who are authors have experienced reviews that are diametrically opposed to one another. I’ve had reviews that are hysterically funny and quite entertaining to read. I’ve had reviews that are quite insulting and quite difficult to reading and everything in between.

Peter License: As an author, the reviewer – you know the reviewer. But, actually, that’s a response that everybody gets from a good review.

Kirk Schanze: Of course we all say like all authors sometimes are disappointed in our reviews, but I should say that if a review is well written and thoughtful, I take it quite seriously.

Vivian Yam: I think as an author you should also look at the reviews in a very calm and objective manner because at the end of the day, if you are going to address all the constructive comments by the viewers, then you will end up with a more solid and rigorous piece of work.

Prashant Kamat: There is always one reviewer who – typically we say Reviewer Number 3 – the most critical one, and he decides the fate of your paper. The first two reviewers are so nice, but this third reviewer is sort of spoiling the party. Keep aside comments for two days, and then look back and ready carefully, and then you start analyzing what made this reviewer comment this negatively.

William Tolman: Every time I wrote a paper and got reviews back, I learned a little bit more about what a good review is and what a bad review is, and I don’t mean positive or negative, but quality. When you get a high quality review that’s detailed and has a lot of constructive criticism, it’s really helpful.

Peter License: The reviewers’ comments might make my blood pressure go up, they might make me write an email which rants. But the important thing is that as an author I put that email into the drafts box, I sleep on it.

Carolyn Bertozzi: I always tell my students when someone gives you criticism, you can use it to improve your paper, and in the end, that’s a great thing. So many papers are much better. Thank you, reviewers, whoever you are.

Why are peer reviewers so important?

Carolyn Bertozzi: Being a reviewer is a big responsibility, as I came to learn early in my career.

William Tolman: Reviewers play a critical role for all of the journals for ACS Publications. Probably there are two main things that they do; one is the gatekeepers that make sure that only quality work gets published, but second, they play a critical role in educating authors and making papers better.

Paul Weiss: You find many papers, both that we write and manuscripts that we receive with the journal are tremendously improved by the comments of the referees.

J. Justin Gooding: The most important thing they provide is this sort of guidance on how the paper could be better. So their role is to really improve science.

Jillian Buriak: Reviewers are so important because they help us maintain really high standards for scientific publications.

Prashant Kamat: I can guarantee you that each and every paper of mine has become better after the review process.

Peter License: Bluntly, I do not have the time, I do not have the mind power to consider myself as an expert in all of the fields of people that are published in our journals, so I have to take the standings of trusted people.

Vivian Yam: In fact I would view the reviewer as part of our team. They were giving expert advice to our team and all the editors, we value very much high quality reviews.

Carolyn Bertozzi: Thank you, reviewers. You are awesome.

Peter License: Reviewers, we salute you. Thank you very much.

Paul Weiss: Thank you, reviewers.

Kirk Schanze: We thank you very much.

William Tolman: Thank you very much for all your hard work.

Jillian Buriak: Merci beaucoup nos evaluateurs.

Prashant Kamat: (Thank you in Hindi)

Vivian Yam: (Thank you in Cantonese)

J. Justin Gooding: Thanks, mate.