The Golden Rule of Reviewing, applied to grant proposals

A colleague of mine wrote me a while back, I liked your blog entry on the golden rule of reviewing, but I wanted to see if you have thoughts (or know of similar research) regarding the review process for proposals to agencies. It comes to mind because I served on my first [funding agency] panel […]

A note on good research practice: Dooley (2013)

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 […]

Why study duck penises?

If you ever needed an eloquent argument for funding basic science, please read this excellent editorial by Patricia Brennan. A particular highlight: Investment in the NSF [National Science Foundation, the U.S. government agency that funds scientific research] is just over $20 per year per person, while it takes upward of $2,000 per year per person […]

The Golden Rule of 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?

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?

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”

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?

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 […]

Accepted at Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics after nearly two and half years

On 25 January 2013, 904 days from the date it was submitted (5 August 2010), a manuscript was finally published at Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Not only was this manuscript noteworthy for how long it remained in limbo before a final thumbs up or thumbs down from the Editor, but it was noteworthy for other […]

The Editor’s Royal Flush

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 […]

« Previous Page — Next Page »