Thread by @MarioBarbatti

(1/5)
Some tips for the next generation of reviewers.
(Because mine is doomed!)

Your work as a reviewer consists of answering only three questions:

#AcademicChatter #AcademicWriting

(2/5)
1. Is the science sound, with a logical narrative and well-supported results and conclusions?

2. Is there enough info to allow verifying and reproducing the data?

3. Are there obscure passages that you (or a potential reader) can’t go through?

(3/5)
Don’t play the publisher’s game of “this paper is top x% of the field.”

You likely don’t have enough info to judge and will let prejudice act.

Consider yourself a gatekeeper, avoiding intruders crashing into the party. You shouldn’t care whether the invitees are handsome.

(4/5)
If results are missing to fulfill the authors’ goals, you may ask for additional analyses.

But the emphasis is on the “author’s goals.”

Don’t ask for new things because you'd have done differently.

You’re a reviewer, not a project leader.

(5/5)
If you don’t have anything to ask or comment on, it’s okay.

Don’t force questions just to show off.

Editors don’t care about you.
Authors don’t know who you are.