Reviewing a scientific publication

Reviewing (Who, Why, and Why)
​​​​​​​Reviewing is the most important part of the scholarly publication process. It is through peer reviewing that we can, to some extent, trust the result of the research. Without peer review, articles could simply be posted on (and perhaps the coverage would even be higher). So it's surprising that the entire cost of publication goes to the operation of the journal and profits. Reviewers work for free and get nothing for their work. Also, reviewers do it in their own time; they are scientists themselves, after all, and they need to do their research. This system works at the expense of collective responsibility: today you review an article, and tomorrow you will need a review. But the fact remains that the journal receives not only the content for free, but also the competence of the reviewers.

How does the review happen? The editor, after looking at your article, selects appropriate reviewers - scientists without collaborations with the authors of the article, but working in the same field. The reviewers receive the text from the editor and send their feedback to him or her. The identity of the reviewers is not revealed to the authors of the article; all correspondence is anonymous.
After carefully examining the article, reviewers suggest changes that need to be made - corrections of wording, additional controls and experiments. A good reviewer can greatly improve an article. A lot depends on exactly who is reviewing your article. How carefully will the reviewer check the outline? How carefully will he or she look at supplementary materials and databases? Will they check the statistical tests and methods used? Since there are always two or three reviewers, the role of each is very large.

There are also opportunities for abuse. A reviewer may ask to cite his or her paper or write a negative review because he or she disagrees with your position without relying on the actual quality of the research.

Authors can debate with reviewers - you don't have to completely accept all of their changes. But it is almost impossible to publish an article in its original form
buy research papers, without corrections at all. In most journals, corrections are made to the text of the article, and the correspondence with the reviewers is not available to anyone except the authors. That is, it is impossible to find out what exactly was changed by the reviewers.
Waiting time

What do authors do while the review is going on? Nothing, they wait for reviews. Of course, during this time, research continues on the next projects, but very few experiments are done on the revision article.

How much time is needed? It takes from one week to a month for the editor to review the article (before sending it to reviewers). Sometimes it's worth reminding the editor about your article, then the process speeds up. The review can last from one month to six months. It should be understood that the reviewer is not paid, so many people refuse to do the review. In addition, it can be difficult to find a reviewer without a conflict of interest and an expert in the field of the article. Therefore, in some cases it takes a long time to find reviewers. In exceptional situations, the editor cannot find reviewers, and this further delays the process.

Why might this be a problem? It should be noted here that articles are often needed for grant reports, graduate students need publications for their defense, and sometimes the author of an article is about to change jobs - there is often some deadline by which the research must be published. It is clear that it is wrong to publish an uncompleted article. But scattered deadlines of up to six months makes it very difficult to plan your work.

The review can proceed in several rounds. After changes are made, reviewers may ask for additional experiments. In the end, the review can take several years.
More Resources:

Made with Grapedrop