Every journal has a textbox asking peer reviewers for "Confidential comments to the editor"
What should you write here?
A thread 🧵
@AcademicChatter
What should you write here?
A thread 🧵
@AcademicChatter
Issues with scope/format
Editors check papers fit the journal requirements before sending out to peer review.
If you think the paper is outside scope or a type not published by the journal, notify the editor so they can closely rereview
Editors check papers fit the journal requirements before sending out to peer review.
If you think the paper is outside scope or a type not published by the journal, notify the editor so they can closely rereview
Ethical issues
Similarly, editors check author disclosures, COIs and study ethics prior to peer review.
If you think a COI affects study integrity or a study is not ethical, notify the editor so they can investigate.
Similarly, editors check author disclosures, COIs and study ethics prior to peer review.
If you think a COI affects study integrity or a study is not ethical, notify the editor so they can investigate.
Limits in expertise
Editors ask you to review as an expert in the field.
If part/s of a paper are beyond your expertise, tell the editor so they can ensure these areas are covered by other reviewers (important for multidisciplinary papers)
Editors ask you to review as an expert in the field.
If part/s of a paper are beyond your expertise, tell the editor so they can ensure these areas are covered by other reviewers (important for multidisciplinary papers)
Plagiarism
Most journals check for plagiarism via automated software prior to peer review.
If you suspect plagiarism, you should cite the original source so the editor can follow up.
Most journals check for plagiarism via automated software prior to peer review.
If you suspect plagiarism, you should cite the original source so the editor can follow up.
Your decision rationale
Editors make the final decision. This can be hard when peer reviewers disagree.
Giving a 1-2 line summary on why you chose reject, major revision or accept clarifies your decision making and makes it easier for editors to reconcile disagreeing reports
Editors make the final decision. This can be hard when peer reviewers disagree.
Giving a 1-2 line summary on why you chose reject, major revision or accept clarifies your decision making and makes it easier for editors to reconcile disagreeing reports
Availability to rereview
Most journals ask if you're available for rereview
If this is not the case, you can notify the editor of your availability to review the paper if resubmitted.
Most journals ask if you're available for rereview
If this is not the case, you can notify the editor of your availability to review the paper if resubmitted.
Nothing to say?
Comments to the editor are usually optional.
So if you have given all the information needed in other parts of the review, leave this box blank. Editors will be thankful for a concise review
Comments to the editor are usually optional.
So if you have given all the information needed in other parts of the review, leave this box blank. Editors will be thankful for a concise review
TL/DR
Comments for editors in peer review
1. Out of scope/wrong format
2. Ethical issues
3. Limits in your expertise
4. Decision rationale
5. Plagiarism
6. Availability to rereview
Comments for editors in peer review
1. Out of scope/wrong format
2. Ethical issues
3. Limits in your expertise
4. Decision rationale
5. Plagiarism
6. Availability to rereview
If you enjoyed this thread, please RT the first tweet.
And follow me @LNivisonSmith if you are interested in
- macular degeneration research
- #WomeninSTEM
- #scicomm
- general musings from a mother trying to survive a career in #academia
And follow me @LNivisonSmith if you are interested in
- macular degeneration research
- #WomeninSTEM
- #scicomm
- general musings from a mother trying to survive a career in #academia
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
