SCI 期刊影響因子信息查詢系統

  ● 學術講座
  ● 他山之石
  ● 醫學美文
  ● 智庫資源
  ● 基金信息
  ● 精選病例
  ● 醫界新聞
  ● 新聞中心



1. 基于稿件本身而不是自己的期望來做判斷。

2. 對研究方法的評判要以作者的假設和合理性作為依據。

3. 不要求或暗示作者引用自己的工作。

4. 不強求作者采用深奧的統計檢驗。

5. 不強求作者使用某個特定的研究方法。

6. 不能因為自己的身份作者保密就態度粗魯。

7. 如果認為稿件不能被錄用就不建議作者再重新投稿。

8. 不混淆審稿人與文字加工編輯和校對人員的作用。

9. 不混淆審稿人和審查員的作用。

10. 盡量尊重作者的工作。

Having experienced my share of bad reviewers, I now include this preamble with every review, both as an assurance to the authors and a reminder to myself. Please note that this is not specific to this paper.

1. I will judge the paper based on what it is, not what I want it to be, or what I would have done.

2. The methods will be judged only based on the hypotheses and rationale. Maybe other methods exist and maybe I would have done it differently, but all that matters is whether the methods are adequate to test the hypotheses.

3. I will not tell you to cite my work, or suggest or ask, or hint. That is asking for a bribe, or worse, it is extortion. It is completely unprofessional and an abuse of authority for personal gain. If the paper tests one of my hypotheses or it is a DIRECT derivative of my work and does not cite me, the paper will be deemed to be poorly researched. However, in most cases authors choose from among many available supporting references, and whether I get cited or not is just the luck of the draw.

4. I will not insist on the use of esoteric statistical tests just because I just learned them or because the latest version of my favourite software now includes them as defaults. But if you use them, I will ask you to explain them. If your statistics are suitable for your data and hypothesis, then all is fine.

5. In will not insist on the use of specific methods just because I just bought the equipment and/or my lab or my friend’s lab is the only one that can do those tests (for you). If your methods are suitable to test your hypothesis, then all is fine.

6. I will not be rude simply because my identity is supposedly unknown to you. The fact that I reviewed this paper means that I probably was NOT one of your suggested/requested reviewers. I usually ask, and if I was requested/suggested, I usually decline. Requesting specific reviewers it is just a way of to seek out biased reviewers.

7. If I would never suggest a paper gets accepted (i.e., if there is something deeply wrong with it), I will not waste your time by suggesting a resubmission. I will not assume you will go back in time and do a different study or change your methods. I am sure that you have better uses for your time machine. Nor will I assume that you have free time to do confirmatory additional experiments. This is the paper. There are 3 options: it is good enough, it can become good enough, or not.

8. I will not confuse the role of a reviewer with that of a copy-editor or proof-reader. BUT in my assessment, I will consider the writing quality and style. I will not assume you are not a native English speaker just because your prose is not good, nor will I assume the opposite. Bad writing transcends such arbitrary boundaries. I have refused to review papers that are poorly written. It is the editor’s job to ensure the papers are readable before sending them out for review.

9. I will not confuse the role of a reviewer with that of a censor.

10. Mostly, I will do my best to respect the fact that it is YOUR work, and you are responsible for the quality and content. My role is tell the editors whether it is scientifically sound, and whether it is sound or not, to help the authors make it better. My comments to the authors are only meant to be suggestions for improvement, NOT conditions for publication.

Having said all that, I have the following comments about this paper: ......




學術熱線:021-65535361 公司總機:021-53060660

Copyright © 2012-2014 上海北翱醫藥科技有限公司版權所有 滬ICP備17033024號-1    返回上面