The first issue relates to training. Should those who
provide peer review have some sort of training to do so? This is important,
because the quality and depth of peer review ranges a great deal. Consider that
at ACC-RAC there may be 200 reviewers involved in vetting the papers that have
been submitted. None have any training whatsoever. Certainly, some reviewers
will be scientists who have themselves undergone peer review, and may also
offer same to various journals, but they will provide their reviews based on
the own perceptions about how in-depth they should be, etc. And many others
have never done reviewing at all. It does seem that it would be beneficial to
provide a base level of training so that individuals would know about how deep
to go into their review, would understand they do not need to comment on or
correct editing errors (after all, that is what an editor is for), and would be
trained to keep comments impersonal. The use of a mentor might help here.
Second, journals could provide checklists for reviewers to
use. And journals could offer some sort
of accreditation process for those who review. They could open up the review
process (that is, they could publish the reviewers’ comments along with the
paper).
And reviewers should be acknowledged for the work they do. I
would publish an annual thank you to reviewers, when I edited JMPT. It takes
time and is done free, and it is a valuable service. I hope that you will find
such opportunities to provide such a service.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment