Friday, February 23, 2018

News Feed Comments

A note on good research practice: Dooley (2013)

April 8, 2013   Filed under Blog, Featured, Publishing, Reviewing, Writing  

An editorial in the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control is entitled “A note on good research practice.” Dooley states: By far the most common issue we editors of this journal are seeing in terms of poor scientific practice in submissions is the failure to appropriately cite the work of others. Sadly, we see numerous […]

The Golden Rule of Reviewing

March 29, 2013   Filed under Blog, Featured, Reviewing  

The Golden Rule If you submit N papers per year, you should perform 2N to 3N per year. It is only the right thing to do. If you impose a submission onto the peer-reviewing system, then you owe it to the system to perform two or three reviews to make up for it. The peer-reviewing […]

Should quality peer reviewers be recognized by the journal?

March 23, 2013   Filed under Blog, Featured, Publishing, Reviewing  

I came across this web post and thought this Editor’s idea for recognizing the top 8% of reviewers was a pretty good idea. I admit it might be some work to implement, but the Editor had a formula to do it, reducing the work involved. I am a big fan of this idea for several […]

Is it OK to mentor someone who is writing a peer review?

March 15, 2013   Filed under Blog, Featured, Publishing, Reviewing, Uncategorized  

Brian Curran asks: I would like to hear your thoughts regarding the review process and young (or inexperienced) reviewers. I’ve reviewed just a handful of manuscripts, so it’s safe to say I’m inexperienced. Having a mentor or two guiding us relatively inexperienced reviewers through the process might prove to be beneficial and could serve to […]

Reviewer wants “media-friendly schematic”

March 9, 2013   Filed under Blog, Featured, Reviewing, Writing  

This comment appeared in a review of a paper for which I am serving as Editor. “I suggest creating a media-friendly schematic showing the basic conclusions of how ….” Given all the recent publicity about …, I believe this paper will attract media interest, and a schematic like this will be useful for explaining the […]

Can I resubmit a rejected manuscript to the same journal?

March 7, 2013   Filed under Blog, Featured, Reviewing  

It depends. Most of the time, rejected manuscripts can be resubmitted to the same American Meteorological Society (AMS) journal if the concerns of the reviewers are addressed in a response to the reviewers in your cover letter. Usually, the decision letter will say something like this: “Although your manuscript is being rejected, I invite you […]

The Editor’s Royal Flush

February 8, 2013   Filed under Blog, Featured, Reviewing  

Lately, I’ve been seeing quite a few manuscripts sent out for review that receive one of the following sets of reviews: • reject, accept, major revisions • reject, minor revisions, major revisions I guess these are the equivalent of a royal flush in cards, although I’m not sure the result is as hoped for by […]

Peer review is like a box of chocolates.

January 16, 2013   Filed under Blog, Featured, Publishing, Reviewing  

In talking with Gary Lackmann recently about my philosophy of peer review, the issue came up about how much you can push authors to submit to your will as Editor. I thought about what G. K. Batchelor said in his article in Journal of Fluid Mechanics “Preoccupations of a journal editor” that you don’t have […]

How to Prepare a Really Lousy Submission: Water Resources Research Editorial Team

December 18, 2012   Filed under Blog, Featured, Humor, Publishing, Resources, Reviewing, Writing  

Sent to me from colleagues at the University of Utah. [PDF]

How NOT to review a paper. The tools and techniques of the adversarial reviewer

December 18, 2012   Filed under Blog, Featured, Humor, Resources, Reviewing  

A paper by Graham Cormode (2009) [PDF], sent to me by Rene Garreaud. The abstract gives you a flavor of how this paper reads…. There are several useful guides available for how to review a paper in Computer Science. These are soberly presented, carefully reasoned and sensibly argued. As a result, they are not much […]

« Previous PageNext Page »