Category Archives: peer review

the appraisal and rejection of conference abstracts

Posted on September 12, 2013 by

I had an email recently from an early career researcher who’d just had an abstract for a conference knocked back. When they asked for feedback, they were shocked by what they read. Presumably assuming that the writer would never see … Continue reading →

Posted in abstracts, conference papers, early career researchers, peer review, rejection, reviewing | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

a case of conflicting reviewer comments

Posted on May 27, 2013 by

So you’ve sent the paper into the journal and now the referee comments are in your in-box. You finally pluck up the courage to open the email and what do you find? Contradictory comments. Not helpful. Not at all. We … Continue reading →

Posted in conflicting reviews, journal, journal editor, peer review, refereeing | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

research track record – how do you get it?

Posted on May 17, 2012 by

One of the things that can count for or against you when bidding for research project money is track record. All funders would like to give their money to someone who they are pretty confident can produce the goods. So … Continue reading →

Posted in early career researchers, peer review, publication plan, research funding, research mentoring, research plan, track record | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

what’s at stake for an early career researcher in going for publication in a top ranked journal ?

Posted on March 18, 2012 by

I often get asked in workshops whether early career researchers should aim to get into a top journal. I want to give the first two parts of my answer in this post. My first response – WHO IS SAYING THIS … Continue reading →

Posted in acceptance, emotional labour, journal, online publishing, peer review, publishing, rejection, scholarly identity, top ranked journal | Tagged , , , , , | 9 Comments

refereeing a journal article. part 3. writing the feedback

Posted on January 19, 2012 by

Having read the article carefully, and decided whether it’s accept without change, revise and resubmit or reject, there is now the task of writing the feedback to the author/s. There are four things to keep in mind when writing feedback: … Continue reading →

Posted in feedback, journal, peer review, refereeing | Tagged , , , , | 14 Comments

refereeing a journal article. part 2: making a recommendation

Posted on January 13, 2012 by

Journals always ask reviewers to recommend whether an article should be published as is, or whether the writer should do small or large revisions. They also ask if the article should be rejected outright. Making a publication recommendation can feel … Continue reading →

Posted in acceptance, journal, peer review, refereeing, rejection | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

refereeing a journal article. part 1: reading

Posted on January 7, 2012 by

So you’ve just got an article to review and you’re not sure how to go about it. Before even beginning to read, the first thing to get clear about is the STANCE you have to take as a reviewer. Once … Continue reading →

Posted in journal, peer review, reading, refereeing | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments