Hi the list,
Following the previous posts from Will and others on a quite similar topic, I
just wanted to drop of few lines here and get the opinions of colleagues in the
field of sport science. This does not concern the overall submission/publishing
process that was thoroughly discussed a few months ago, but just the actual job
of the 2 to 3 reviewers in charge of the examination of each paper (Will has
already partly commented this topic as well - so concider this as an
'extension')
As all of us, in the past years, I have received from different journals both
excellent and constrictive reviews (that substantially improved my
manuscripts), and completely inappropriate and biased reviews.
While the final word is definitely (and always will be, I guess) to the Editors
in line with each Journal policy, I was wondering if we could adopt/think
about, more informally, a kind of self-agreement for a "fair and objective
reviewing process".
Here are some views, open to all your comments/critics.
1. If we consider that the first aim of a review is to examine whether
the
manuscript has the potential to be published:
a. If the paper is not worth publishing, the reviewer does not need to
provide specific comments. The major comments exemplify why the study is
flawed, and this is enough. I don't see also why the `tone' of the review
should be important, i.e., things have to be said how they are I mean, do the
Reviewers really need to say "excuse me, please, but I am not completely sure
that, eventually, your study doesn't make sense"?
b. If the paper is worth publishing, then the reviewer is expected to do
his best to help the authors to improve whatever he thinks is worthwhile to
make a final good paper. Detailed specific comments, etc should be extensively
given here. The greatest work of a reviewer is here. Not for the case a. above.
2. To ensure that the review is not biased and objective
a. The AUTHORS' NAMES ARE UNKNOWN BY THE REVIEWERS. Then, the only thing
that is likely evaluated is the content (I know this point can be discussed,
and as a reviewer I also like to know who it is, but like this, if the
reviewers don't know who wrote the paper, it is still harder for them to be
biased from the start of their work).
b. Conversely, the reviewers SIGN their review. THE REVIEWERS' NAME IS
KNOWN BY THE AUTHORS. This is to me the most important point (except a few
scientists who already do it by themselves sometimes, this is definitively not
a usual practice today). That would oblige the reviewers to be honest in their
review, since they would also know that, if not, they will be in trouble
(people will complain about them directly, etc). That would oblige reviewers to
provide objective comments (i.e., facts) if they think that a paper should be
rejected (i.e., strong methodological issues, etc). And, then, based ON FACTS
AND NOT OPINIONS, the decision on a paper becomes clearer for the editor. It is
however important in this case to highlight that the decision is still to the
editors, not to the reviewers of course (to still "protect" in a way the
reviewers).
3. The fact that the name of the reviewers is known would have additional
benefits:
a. Which reviewer would be happy with everyone knowing that he needed 5
months to review a paper, while he accepted to do it within 3 weeks when he
clicked on the hyperlink "Yes, I agree to review this manuscript"? I am sure
that this would accelerate the review process (since all editors generally say
that it is not their fault = most of the delays are related to the lazy
reviewers).
b. On the other side, the reviewer being able to provide an excellent,
constructive review, which improves the original manuscript will be
acknowledged by the authors. That will contribute to advertise the reviewer's
scientific skills and potentially promote himself or open new collaboration
perspectives for the future. I personally have quite positive experiences with
paper reviewed by Aaron Coutts and David Poole and others that I couldn't
identify
. I thank them a lot for their input in my papers and at this point,
I would even be happy to put the reviewers' names in the acknowledgement
section of the manuscript.
Thanks for your comments and reactions
Best wishes
----------------***---------------------------
Martin Buchheit, PhD
***
Exercise Physiologist
ASPIRE, Academy for Sports Excellence
P.O. Box 22287, Doha,
Qatar
Tel: (+974) 4413 6103
Fax: (+974) 4413 6060
Mobile: (+974) 55232540
***
MCU, Faculté des Sciences du Sport
Laboratoire de recherche 'Adaptation physiologiques à l'exercice et
réadaptation à l'effort'
Allée P. GROUSSET, 80025 AMIENS CEDEX 1, France
***
Myorobie
http://www.martin-buchheit.net
-----------------***---------------------------
------------------------------------
Post messages to [email protected]. To (un)subscribe, send any
message to sportscience-(un)[email protected]. View all messages at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sportscience/.Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sportscience/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sportscience/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
