Reviewers' Update - information for reviewers about relevant Elsevier and industry developments, support and training.

๊ทํ์ ๋ธ๋ผ์ฐ์ ๊ฐ ์๋ฒฝํ๊ฒ ์ง์๋์ง ์์ต๋๋ค. ์ต์ ์ด ์๋ ๊ฒฝ์ฐ ์ต์ ๋ฒ์ ์ผ๋ก ์ ๊ทธ๋ ์ด๋ํ๊ฑฐ๋ Mozilla Firefox, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome ๋๋ Safari 14 ์ด์์ ์ฌ์ฉํ์ธ์. ๊ฐ๋ฅํ์ง ์๊ฑฐ๋ ์ง์์ด ํ์ํ ๊ฒฝ์ฐ ํผ๋๋ฐฑ์ ๋ณด๋ด์ฃผ์ธ์.
์ด ์๋ก์ด ๊ฒฝํ์ ๋ํ ๊ทํ์ ์๊ฒฌ์ ๊ฐ์ฌ๋๋ฆฝ๋๋ค.์๊ฒฌ์ ๋ง์ํด ์ฃผ์ธ์ย ์ ํญ/์ฐฝ์์ ์ด๊ธฐ
2023๋ 6์ 7์ผ
์ ์: Christopher Tancock
Image ยฉ istockphoto.com/damircudic
We would appreciate your expertise in reviewing the attached manuscript.
These words, or something similar, have just kicked off your first experience in acting as a referee. How do you respond? Where to start? What do you say? Relax! Let us guide you through the peer review process and make your experience a success โ both for you, the editor, and the author(s) involved.
350 years after the launch of the first peer refereed journal โย Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Societyย โ peer review remains the lynchpin of academic publishing, and places you as referee at the very heart of the process. Putting it simply,ย peer review provides a vital quality control mechanismย ์ ํญ/์ฐฝ์์ ์ด๊ธฐ.
[Philosophical Transactions should be] licensed under the charter by the Council of the Society, being first reviewed by some of the members of the same. [R. Soc. Order in Council 1/3/1665]
Done well, peer review improves the quality and presentation of a paper, ensures that the research is embedded in the existing literature (and that previous work is acknowledged), verifies the originality, significance and relevance of the work, identifies ethical breaches, and ensures the reference list is complete and sufficiently extensive. So how do you approach the process in a fashion that will ensure all of the above aspects are addressed?
Perhaps even before reading the abstract, you shouldย ask yourself the question:ย โdo I have time for this?โ. It might be that you have a grant application due in next week. Or a big project is about to kick off. Maybe youโve just become a parent or have gone through some similar life-changing event. Whatever the situation, if you canโt devote sufficient time to reviewing the paper, make things easier both for yourself and the other parties โ say โnoโ asap and allow the editor to find an alternative reviewer.
If thisย isย a convenient time, start by reading the abstract andย consider whether the subject matter is indeed in your sphere of expertise. If not, you should swiftly decline the invite, explaining your reasons. (A final reason to turn down the request would be if you hadย any sort of conflicting interestย ์ ํญ/์ฐฝ์์ ์ด๊ธฐย e.g., being at the same institute as the author or having some sort of financial interest in the project under discussion.)
Assuming that you do possess the happy triumvirate of time, expertise and a lack of conflicting interest, the next step is to carefully read the covering invitation and instructions from the editor, check out the journalโs guide for reviewers and, if satisfied, accept the request.
The first thing we would recommend when embarking on your review would be toย carefully read the manuscript once without any specific objective. Your task here is just to get a general impression of the piece. Once youโve got your bearings, so to speak, and being conscious of the journalโs instructions*,ย read the paper over again with eye to the results, conclusions and summary. Do there seem to be any significant mismatches or issues? Start making notesโฆ
On your next perusal of the paper, consider the structure and style โ does it read/flow well or are there any obstructions to understanding? Youโre probably reaching a point now where itโs difficult to see the wood from the trees.ย Take a breakย โ youโll approach the next stage much better if you do!
Now is the time to start formulating your thoughts.ย Make a detailed list of feedbackย โ either as a numbered list or inline on the paper depending on the platform and tools used by the journal in question. Also begin drafting feedback to author and the editor (NB these should be separate). Itโs important to be able to justify your comments so make sure you can do so if necessary.
Weighing up all your analysis and dissection of the paper, you need toย decide on your overall recommendationย to the editor. Would you counsel rejection, revision or approval? In all that you do here, you should put yourself in the authorโs shoes. Consider how your feedback will sound andย make sure that your comments are measured, justifiable, constructive and above all polite. And whatever you do, take the opportunity to read your report once more before submitting โ something you might later regret could be lurking!
You might think that once youโve pressed โsendโ on your referee report, thatโs your job done. Almost, but not quite. One thing to bear in mind is that you must not share any aspect of the work youโve been privileged to see โ the content is strictly confidential unless you are told differently by the editor.
Whatโs more, as practically every manuscript not desk rejected is revised, you shouldย be prepared to re-review the piece. Though this equates to another effort on your part, youโre best-placed to look at a revised manuscript and give your judgment on whether itโs now ready for publication. With all of this, consider that you are probably repaying a favour โ having had the benefit of someone elseโs time and expertise on your own work in the past.
Once the editor has made a final decision on the paper, you can indeed give yourself a pat on the back and reflect on a job well done. You shouldnโt pass up the opportunity toย ask for feedback from the editor, however โ if this your first (or an early) experience of reviewing, you could pick up some tips to up your game next time. Speaking of next time, it might be worth looking at some resources to further hone your refereeing edge (a list of โfurther readingโ is included below). Finally,ย ensure that you get due credit for your workย โ e.g. via Elsevierโsย Reviewer Hubย ์ ํญ/์ฐฝ์์ ์ด๊ธฐย or by ensuring yourย ORCIDย profile and CV are up to date.
And thatโs it! We hope this has been a helpful guide in tackling your first review. In any case, good luck, and thanks for being a key part of a vital 350-year-old system thatโs helped improve academic output for countless articles, yours included.
*Many of our journals now employ โstructured peer reviewโย whereby you will receive a series of questions to make it easier for you to convey recommendations for improvement in a structured manner.
CT