Computer Simulations of Scientific Peer Reviewing

Reviewing Scientific Manuscripts: A Comprehensive Guide for Peer Reviewers.

86 The abstract provides the authors with an opportunity to summarize the objectives, methods, 87 results and conclusions for the journal readers. It is oftentimes the first, and perhaps only, section 88 of the manuscript that will be read as it is typically freely available through reference databases. 89 The abstract should provide a clear statement of the study objectives, which must match w...

Charge for peer reviewing

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch” is an adage described over one century ago, which became popular by Professor Milton Friedman, in 1975. It came to my mind when reading the interesting editorial by Pasternak and Glina.(1,2) Working on both sides, as an author of journals and a reviewer, I am aware of the importance of a good review. It is powerful to enhance the description of results in...

The Peer-Reviewing Game

We model a family of peer-reviewing processes as gametheoretic problems. The model helps to understand elements of existing peer-reviewing procedures, and to predict the impact of new mechanisms. The peer-reviewing for evaluation of scientific results submitted to conferences involves complex decision processes of independent participants. Significant tax-payer money is spent by governments for...

Reviewing scientific papers.

Guidelines for the preparation of structured reports for laboratory studies, clinical studies, epidemiological studies, and observations could be useful. A structured report should prompt reviewers to acknowledge familiarity or otherwise with method, background papers, and so on. New reviewers could draw up their own system. Reports should be helpful and courteous so that whether or not the pap...

A Different Look at Peer-Reviewing of Articles