write one that gets good reviews,
and address reviewers' comments
First review
Rejected
Editor
Rejected
Accepted
n-th review
Accepted
Final version
Revised version
First version
Journals only
Relevance
Significance
Check Journal policies!
q.e.d.
Who checks
the math?
Comments to the Editor
Comments to the Authors
Authors cannot read it.
Could contain
Confidential
Your review is anonymous.
A common rule of thumb: don't say things you wouldn't say in person to the authors.
Relevance
Comments to the Editor
Comments to the Authors
Confidential
Relevance
Comments to the Editor
Comments to the Authors
Confidential
Significance
Originality
Relevance
Comments to the Editor
Comments to the Authors
Confidential
Significance
Originality
Relevance
Comments to the Editor
Comments to the Authors
Confidential
Significance
Citations
Originality
Relevance
Comments to the Editor
Comments to the Authors
Confidential
Significance
Citations
Technical Q.
Originality
Relevance
Comments to the Editor
Comments to the Authors
Confidential
Significance
Citations
Technical Q.
Presentation
Originality
Relevance
Comments to the Editor
Comments to the Authors
Confidential
Significance
Citations
Technical Q.
Presentation
Summary of the contribution
Originality
Relevance
Comments to the Editor
Comments to the Authors
Confidential
Significance
Citations
Technical Q.
Presentation
Final recommendation
Don't assume here that a specific decision will be taken.
Is it possible to address the negative points?
How?
Reject / Major revision
Minor revision / Accept as it is
Read each of the following stories, and list all the ethical issues that you can identify, before reading the solutions in the following slide.
Professor Farnsworth runs a productive research group with both students and postdocs. To help his trainees develop their communication skills, they give talks in group meeting, seminars in the department, etc.
Professor Farnsworth is asked to review a paper for a journal, and he asks one of his students to study it, present it in the group meeting, where the paper is discussed.
Based on the discussion, he prepares his review for the editor of the journal.
Dr. Wernstrom accepts to review a paper on a topic on which he has recently submitted a paper himself. His paper has been accepted, but it is not publicly available.
The paper he has to review covers a special case of his work. Dr. Wernstrom posts a preprint on arXiv, and writes in the comments to the authors that they should have a look at that, stating that the paper is not acceptable because it lacks originality.
Prof. Farnsworth is often asked to review papers for many journal and conferences. Because of that, he is very late on the deadline for one of these reviews.
He asks Dr. Wernstrom if he can help.
Dr. Wernstrom exceptionally accepts (he almost always declines any review request).
Prof. Farnsworth then sends the manuscript to Dr. Wernstrom and asks the Editor to transfer the review.
Dr. Wernstrom is reviewing a journal paper by some researchers that he doesn't know personally.
The paper under review cite Dr. Wernstrom's last work, and acknowledge him for making some Matlab code available on his website.
Dr. Wernstrom will visit the lab of these authors next week, because he is applying for a position there, and he has been invited for an interview.
He finds the paper brilliant, and recommends it.
During his interview, he congratulates for the paper.
Art. 17 Principles of peer review
1. ETH Zurich researchers are willing to serve as experts, in particular concerning [...] acceptance of publications (peer review) [...].
2. The expert person's anonymity warrants the highest degree of objectivity, impartiality and confidentiality. The expert person:
a. must treat all information in question as confidential as long as it has not been published by the authors;
b. may not consult other experts on the subject of the expert opinion without the consent of the competent body who has appointed him;
c. may not use the confidential information disclosed to him in the course of his activities as expert; and
d. must provide timely, unbiased, constructive and well-established expert opinions. He must refrain from making emotional, derogatory or offensive remarks.
I only hope that computer-aided proof checking saves mathematics before it collapses under the weight of decades of irresponsible publishing.
Of all disciplines, peer review in mathematics should serve to guarantee nearly absolute confidence in the validity of published results.
Many subjects have grown so complex that one can't reasonably expect new people coming to the field to take responsibility for the correctness of all the literature that they might need to quote.
Newton's Principia Mathematica (1728)
We no longer write mathematical formulas in prose.
On the other hand, proofs are still in prose, and surprisingly similar to 18th century proofs!
Other issues with 18th-century-style proofs:
Solution: STRUCTURE + NAMING
Error-proof
naming
analytics by Ryan Beck from the Noun Project
review by Daniel Nochta from the Noun Project
badge by Pham Thi Dieu Linh from the Noun Project
How to Review a Scientific Paper
by
Saverio Bolognani
is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.