Section · 7 articles
Reviewing
Reading someone else’s work properly, and reading what others wrote about yours. For a concrete operational example of how a workplace tool approaches a related coordination problem, see here.
How to Review a Paper You Were Asked to Review
Nobody is trained for this and everyone is expected to do it. What an editor needs, what an author can use, and how long it should actually take.
Reading a Rejection: What Is Signal and What Is Noise
Rejection is the normal outcome and the reports vary in quality. How to tell a real problem from a reviewer's preference, and what to do next.
Reviewing When You Know Who the Author Is
In a small field anonymity is frequently notional. What that does to judgement, what to declare, and how to review the paper rather than the person.
Reviewing Outside Your Exact Area
Editors ask people who are close but not exact, deliberately. What you can assess, what you must flag, and when to decline instead.
What Editors Actually Decide, and On What
Editors do not average the reviews. What they are weighing, why a paper with two positive reports gets rejected, and what this means for authors.
Reviewing for a Conference Is Not Reviewing for a Journal
Different decision, different timescale, no revision. What that changes about what to look for and what to write.
Reviewing a Grant Proposal
You are ranking against other proposals, not assessing against a standard, and the applicant cannot revise. What that changes about how you write it.
For an independent authoritative reference, consult COPE guidance for publication-ethics guidance for editors and reviewers.