Seeking good peer review in geomorphology

Détails

ID Serval
serval:BIB_7F131EBE7DAA
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Titre
Seeking good peer review in geomorphology
Périodique
Earth surface processes and landforms
Auteur(s)
Lane S.N.
ISSN-L
0197-9337
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2012
Volume
37
Numéro
1
Pages
3-8
Langue
anglais
Notes
ISI:000298793700002
Résumé
This paper provides an extended guide to reviewing for ESPL in
particular and geomorphology in general. After a brief consideration of
both how we choose reviewers and why we hope that reviewers will accept,
I consider what makes a fair and constructive review. I note that we aim
to publish papers with the rigour (r) necessary to sustain an original
and significant contribution (q). I note that judging q is increasingly
difficult because of the ever-growing size of the discipline (the Q).
This is the sense in which we rarely have a full appreciation of Q, and
our reviews are inevitably going to contain some bias. It is this bias
that cannot be avoided (cf. Nicholas and Gordon, 2011) and makes the job
of ESPL's Editors of critical importance. With this in mind, I identify
six elements of a good review: (1) an introductory statement that
explains your assessment of your competences in relation to the
manuscript (r and Q); (2) a summative view of the originality and
significance of the manuscript (q) in relation to Q: (3) a summative
view of the methodological rigour of the manuscript (r); (4)
identification and justification of any major concerns; (5)
identification of any minor issues to be corrected if you think the
manuscript merits eventual publication; and (6) note of any
typographical or presentation issues to be addressed although this
latter activity is also an editorial responsibility. In addition, I note
the importance of a constructive review, grounded in what is written in
the manuscript, justified where appropriate and avoiding reference to
personal views as far as is possible. I conclude with a discussion of
whether or not you should sign your review openly and the importance of
reviewer confidentiality. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Open Access
Oui
Création de la notice
30/01/2013 9:38
Dernière modification de la notice
08/05/2019 21:02
Données d'usage