Reasons for a Rejection at a Eagle Board of Review

How, When, and Why to Say No to a Review Request

In his recent post on the editor's view of peer review all-time practice, Brian Johnson highlighted the importance of prompt responses to review invitations – particularly if the reviewer is not able to undertake the review. In today'south post, Andrew Moore, Editor-in-Master of BioEssays and Inside the Jail cell explores the decision to turn down a review request in more detail. Today we're all about maxim "no".

Source: iStock/Thinkstock

The "when" is like shooting fish in a barrel: Practice this, equally shortly as you have established that you cannot perform the review on time, or are not scientifically (or otherwise – run across later) suitable to assess the manuscript: editors are exceedingly grateful for quick declines. Most editorial offices don't invite a large backlog of reviewers in the first instance, preferring to re-visit the record at brusque intervals and invite one or two more than reviewers as necessary: this avoids "burning" reviewers unnecessarily. So don't keep the editor hanging on unnecessarily. The asking to review usually only contains the manuscript championship and abstruse, and so in that location is not much reading to exist done earlier deciding not to review. And yet, my experience in editorial suggests that this is non such an easy determination to go right after all.

And then to the "why":

1. No time to spare

If you genuinely don't accept plenty fourth dimension to review, you must refuse. This innocent question opens out into ane of the well-nigh contentious matters in contemporary peer review and whether/how such a service can exist formally recognized: peer review is a major brunt, and nobody, information technology seems, really has the time. Hence the questions to your self should be "Am I prepared to brand time to review this piece? And am I disciplined enough to stick to the borderline?" But clearly that isn't so easy to estimate, because we regularly have reviewers who string out the process despite reminders, and even despite their own reassurances to editorial that they "will submit by the finish of the calendar week", for example. If your intentions are noble, it is improve to bow out early if you lot actually can't manage information technology – much better than introducing a large delay in the overall peer review process, which creates a bad reputation for you; indeed, it can even arouse suspicion in the editor and/or author(south) that you actively wish to delay publication of the work. In more one example, one of my authors has even correctly guessed the identity of the delaying reviewer and noted the situation of competition with that research group. In cases of unusually long peer review delay, conscientious editorial staff volition inform authors (if they haven't themselves asked before that point) about the status of peer review.

2. Knowing what you don't know

The other, equally unproductive, upshot of peer review is a written report that damns the work in question for unjustifiable reasons. In some cases, this can ascend out of a desire to rubbish fellow scientists – which is, of course, not very noble if the peer review is anonymous; simply more often it comes from being unaware of one'southward own lack of cognition in a particular surface area. Being aware of what nosotros don't know – i.e. and then-chosen metacognition – is not and so straightforward, and seems to be a meaning gene in sub-optimal peer review, as observed by Sui Huang in a BioEssays Editorial. So, call up carefully: do yous know what you don't know in the field in question? Is that "don't-know-area" large? So perhaps you shouldn't review this manuscript, even if you think you lot know quite a lot.

iii. Conflict of interest

Another articulate reason for non agreeing to review is if yous have a conflict of interest- either positive or negative. Perhaps you are not directly associated with the publication record of the writer(southward), but you have a shut professional connection all the aforementioned: or, you have been asked to read a pre-submission draft of the manuscript. Virtually editors bank check potential reviewers against the acknowledgements, simply occasional oversights are but human, and sometimes a pre-submission reader is not acknowledged.

Finally to the "how". This besides seems very simple: but reply on time proverb that you can't exercise the review, and if y'all know someone who would be suitable, scientifically, please let editorial know :-) Should y'all also requite an opinion on the newspaper that you are declining to review? Some do. That typically depends on the reason for which you are declining to review. If you truly know the field very well, and practise not take the time to review, you lot might well exist justified in giving an opinion, and it might help editorial, especially if information technology proves extremely difficult to get whatever reviewer to seize with teeth. However, a thorough, real, peer review is enormously more valuable than a quick comment over email. So, call up carefully: if you really accept something of import to say and you think that information technology's worth giving criticism with a constructive aim, you should probably agree instead, and endeavour your best to make time for the review.

schoenbergcruldempan.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/being-a-peer-reviewer/how-when-and-why-to-say-no-to-a-review-request