tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post1049847042038940643..comments2024-01-13T02:28:25.074-04:00Comments on Physicists of the Caribbean: Referees Who Move Goalposts Make Lousy PeersRhysyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13219113442790412792noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post-85831238718654653952014-09-08T08:12:11.394-04:002014-09-08T08:12:11.394-04:00I'd say apples and oranges - people who want t...I'd say apples and oranges - people who want to actively do science don't generally aspire to become editors - not because the position isn't important or respected (it certain is both), but because it's just not what they want to do.<br /><br />Peer review is not a position as such - it's something active scientists get asked to do maybe once or twice per year. The rest of the time they're doing research.Rhysyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13219113442790412792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post-48185700273708917842014-09-08T06:52:51.610-04:002014-09-08T06:52:51.610-04:00Interesting! I assume the role of journal editor i...Interesting! I assume the role of journal editor is an even more highly sought after position?Paul Spoonerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17640871289041630907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post-823907888098873892014-09-08T02:36:22.468-04:002014-09-08T02:36:22.468-04:00You become a reviewer by invitation of a journal. ...You become a reviewer by invitation of a journal. Usually that means you've published papers yourself, which gets you noticed by the system. Ideally you should be at least as qualified as the author of the paper, so normally (except for very senior scientists who've done it all) reviewers will be fellow ultra-specialists rather than generalists. The thing is that unless you've actually analysed similar data using the same techniques, you won't understand the subtleties of the process. You might be able to spot logical flaws (which are rare), but not technicalities (which are common). You would also need a thorough background knowledge of the subject matter, which means staying up to date on the other papers in the same subject area. It also helps to attend conferences to get a general feel of what the community thinks about a particular idea.<br /><br />Structure and presentation can be almost neglected - papers are structured in a very standard way, so although a few comments about moving things between sections can be helpful, they're nowhere near as important as comments on the science. Presentation is almost irrelevant as there are standardised typesetting programs, and the journal's own team will take great care to ensure everything's done according to their (incredibly exacting) standards anyway.<br /><br />It sounds like what you want to be is a journal editor. The editor's main role is to provide oversight on the peer review process. They need enough enough general knowledge to know when one side is being unreasonable, but don't have to have the highly specialised knowledge as the reviewer. They also read the paper themselves and sometimes provide their own feedback.Rhysyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13219113442790412792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post-64964075704833664652014-09-07T23:05:58.876-04:002014-09-07T23:05:58.876-04:00I am a polymath, familiar with a broad range of to...I am a polymath, familiar with a broad range of topics and concepts, and able to offer constructive advice on both structure and presentation. I feel like I would greatly enjoy the process of reading through papers and offering advice on how to improve them, as well as finding logical flaws and/or oversights.... so I'm wondering... How does one go about becoming a general all-topic peer reviewer? I have a bachelors degree in Engineering, but I'm comfortable reviewing pretty much anything. Do you need some sort of Peer Review License?Paul Spoonerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17640871289041630907noreply@blogger.com