For a change in the peer-reveiwing as an urgent need?
With an increasing number of Journal and other publication, the review by peer started to be difficult and very often nonqualified reviewers are solicited. Very often now the Journal send us a list that ressemble the directory a. This is a problem since many of the persons listed here do not have even a record over 10 and there are supposed to review works they don't know, and they are not qualified. I would like to start a huge discussion that can be sent to the main Journal to change the rules. For example, a research paper submitted by a researcher that is quite well evaluated could not be challenged by someone that is not at the same level or higher.
Some review that needed urgent review < 5 open days should be paid correctly, but only if the work of the reviewer is well done. This is easy to evaluate since the data are actually available and a bad reviewer could be excluded.
Sincerely yours
Some review that needed urgent review < 5 open days should be paid correctly, but only if the work of the reviewer is well done. This is easy to evaluate since the data are actually available and a bad reviewer could be excluded.
Sincerely yours
2 Answers
Basheer
I saw few research had been published in Q1 and Q2 journals that weaker than my own research but their work was accepted and my work was rejected. for example :
1- In one of IEEE Q1 journal there is a published weak research that had been accepted just because the researcher was IEEE senior.
2- In one of Elsevier Q2 journal there is a research just paraphrased a work that its already well known in any researcher in that filed but yet it got accepted and published which rise so many questions about how did it pass!
3- In one of Springer Q2 journal there is one research was kind good idea but the writing was totally different and difficult which rise some questions about how the reviewer pass it without asking some core knowledge and proven for results?
and so on. So in case of what you want to do its quite difficult cause there are so many reasons and factors for what might had happened.
at the same time the journal cant do much to fix that too.
the best and easy choice is to submit to another journal
my answer kind little far from what you expected but that's what I saw and found
1- In one of IEEE Q1 journal there is a published weak research that had been accepted just because the researcher was IEEE senior.
2- In one of Elsevier Q2 journal there is a research just paraphrased a work that its already well known in any researcher in that filed but yet it got accepted and published which rise so many questions about how did it pass!
3- In one of Springer Q2 journal there is one research was kind good idea but the writing was totally different and difficult which rise some questions about how the reviewer pass it without asking some core knowledge and proven for results?
and so on. So in case of what you want to do its quite difficult cause there are so many reasons and factors for what might had happened.
at the same time the journal cant do much to fix that too.
the best and easy choice is to submit to another journal
my answer kind little far from what you expected but that's what I saw and found
Vijay K Dalal