Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0 - (Page 14)
Reviewers’ Information Pack
Supporting Peer-Review 7. A BRIEF GUIDE TO REVIEWING
7.1. Purpose of Peer-Review
Peer-review is a critical element of scholarly publication, and one of the major cornerstones of the scientific process. Peer-review serves two key functions: • Acts as a filter: Ensures research is properly verified before being published. • Improves the quality of the research: rigorous review by other experts helps to hone key points and correct inadvertent errors.
7.3. Conducting the Review
Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially, the article you have been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party. If you wish to elicit opinion from colleagues or students regarding the article you should let the editor know beforehand. Most editors welcome additional comments, but whoever else is involved will likewise need to keep the review process confidential. You should not attempt to contact the author. Be aware when you submit your review that any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision made by the editor. Set aside two or three hours to conduct the review. It is better to complete the evaluation in one go rather than snatching time here and there. Depending upon the journal, you will be asked to evaluate the article on a number of criteria. Some journals provide detailed guidance others do not, but normally you would be expected to evaluate the article according to the following:
7.2. On being asked to Review
Does the article you are being asked to review truly match your expertise?
The Editor who has approached you may not know your work intimately, and may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Only accept an invitation if you are competent to review the article.
Do you have time to review the paper?
Reviewing an article can be quite time consuming. The time taken to review can vary from field to field, but an article will take, on average, 3 hours to review properly. Will you have sufficient time before the deadline stipulated in the invitation to conduct a thorough review? If you cannot conduct the review let the editor know immediately, and if possible advise the editor of alternative reviewers.
Originality
Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal’s standards? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in? Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field? You might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as SciVerse Scopus to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research has been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.
Are there any potential conflicts of interest?
A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate you from reviewing an article, but full disclosure to the editor will allow them to make an informed decision. For example, if you work in the same department or institute as one of the authors, worked on a paper previously with an author or have a professional or financial connection to the article. These should all be listed when responding to the editor’s invitation for review.
14
www.elsevier.com/reviewers
http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers
http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0
Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0
Table of Contents
1. About Elsevier
1.1. A Short History of Elsevier
2. About Peer-Review
2.1. What Is Peer-Review?
2.2. Who Are Reviewers?
2.3. Why Reviewers Review?
2.4. Peer-Review Process
2.5. Types of Peer-Review
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
3.2. Promptness
3.3. Confidentiality
3.4. Standards of Objectivity
3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.7. Adherence to Elsevier Publishing Ethics
4. Peer-Review System
4.1. Elsevier Editorial System (EES)
4.2. Tools to Help
5. Supporting Our Reviewers
5.1. Online Support
5.2. Training
6. Listening to Our Reviewers
6.1. Reviewer Feedback Programme
6.2. Reviewers’ Home
6.3. Elsevier and Sense About Science Reviewer Survey
7. A Brief Guide to Reviewing
7.1. Purpose of Peer-Review
7.2. On Being Asked to Review
7.3. Conducting the Review
7.4. Communicating Your Report to the Editor
Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0
https://www.nxtbookmedia.com