4
What aspects of peer reviews do you find most valuable?
Results
| 1 - Not valuable | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Extremely valuable | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical accuracy assessment | 3.98% 7 | 11.93% 21 | 22.73% 40 | 34.09% 60 | 27.27% 48 | 176 |
| Methodology critique | 3.93% 7 | 11.80% 21 | 23.03% 41 | 37.08% 66 | 24.16% 43 | 178 |
| Writing and presentation feedback | 7.82% 14 | 12.29% 22 | 32.40% 58 | 30.73% 55 | 16.76% 30 | 179 |
| Literature suggestions | 8.52% 15 | 25.00% 44 | 27.84% 49 | 25.57% 45 | 13.07% 23 | 176 |
| Data analysis feedback | 4.52% 8 | 11.30% 20 | 25.42% 45 | 38.42% 68 | 20.34% 36 | 177 |
| Discussion and interpretation insights | 1.69% 3 | 6.21% 11 | 22.03% 39 | 32.77% 58 | 37.29% 66 | 177 |
Answer Explanations
- user-885591
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 1 0 Methodology critique 0 0 1 0 0 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 1 0 0 Literature suggestions 0 1 0 0 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 1 0 All of this is useful. What Is to me unacceptable is a reviewer advising whether or not the "level" of a manuscript is suitable for a specific journal. This is not science, but business. And editors should decide that. - user-287804
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 1 0 Methodology critique 0 0 0 1 0 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 1 0 0 Literature suggestions 0 1 0 0 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 1 0 0 While literature suggestions might sometimes be helpful, in most cases the authors are very familiar with the literature. Issues with methodology and analysis are helpful. - user-47498
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 1 0 0 Methodology critique 0 0 0 1 0 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Literature suggestions 0 0 0 0 1 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 1 0 Generally good literature and discussion suggestions. - user-683654
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 1 0 Methodology critique 0 0 0 1 0 Writing and presentation feedback 0 1 0 0 0 Literature suggestions 0 1 0 0 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 1 0 That also depends on the type of paper submitted. - user-660265
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 1 0 0 Methodology critique 0 0 1 0 0 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 1 0 0 Literature suggestions 0 1 0 0 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 1 0 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 1 0 In most cases, comments on technical aspects and tests used, as well as materials used for analyses, if provided by experienced scientists, are very valuable. However, the presentation of results is often subjective and the comments provided do not always contribute much to improving the manuscript. - user-489806
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 1 0 Methodology critique 1 0 0 0 0 Writing and presentation feedback 1 0 0 0 0 Literature suggestions 1 0 0 0 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 1 0 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 0 1 It may be that current experts are not savvy when it comes to methodology. Either the studies i submit are always perfect, or no practitioners understand methodology.
I also find it interesting when they critique the writing, the writing of their review is in broken English. - user-504085
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 1 0 0 Methodology critique 0 0 1 0 0 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 1 0 0 Literature suggestions 0 0 1 0 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 1 0 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 1 0 0 when the reviewer is competent and fair in their assessment of the work reported in a paper, then all of these aspect are valuable.
But there are many cases where some of the above aspects fail to produced valuable reviews.
Coming from a non-english speaking country, my papers are always criticized on the english that they say needs to be overhauled of revised, even though, in my case, I hail from a first world english speaking country. This is annoying when such comments are part of the reviews without the reviewers being competent in english. - user-717875
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 0 1 Methodology critique 0 0 1 0 0 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 0 0 1 Literature suggestions 0 0 0 0 1 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 1 0 0 In top impact impact journals the authors are usually seasoned authors and they tend to report things a bit clear - user-381514
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 0 1 Methodology critique 0 0 0 0 1 Writing and presentation feedback 0 1 0 0 0 Literature suggestions 0 1 0 0 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 1 0 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 0 1 With the advent of tools like MS Word Editor it has become easier to produce a paper that is grammatically correct and clear. However, the Word Editor has not been trained to weed out noun-phrases that are the bane of unclear writing, especially for those readers that are unfamiliar with the topic of the papers. - user-633763
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 0 1 Methodology critique 0 0 0 1 0 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Literature suggestions 0 0 0 1 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 0 1 The most important aspects of peer reviews are technical accuracy and methodology, as they validate the scientific integrity of the research. Peer reviews play a vital role in enhancing research quality, with certain elements standing out to authors as particularly significant. Assessing technical accuracy ensures that details like calculations and experimental designs are correct, which is essential for the study's credibility. Critiquing methodology is important because it determines whether the research methods are sound and appropriate, directly influencing result reliability.
Feedback and insights from data analysis discussions seem to be highly valued for reinforcing conclusions and enhancing the study’s impact. While literature suggestions are useful for providing context, they are generally viewed as less critical. Interestingly, although providing feedback may appear less crucial, it can greatly influence the extent to which a paper is read and comprehended, particularly in interdisciplinary fields where clarity is essential. - user-252840
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 0 1 Methodology critique 0 0 0 1 0 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Literature suggestions 1 0 0 0 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 0 1 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 1 0 If the paper has been reviewed by an expert, we get nice feedback. Sometimes reviewers get the papers reviewed by their grad students and they do not understand the essence of the review process, They just focus on typographical errors - user-686732
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 1 0 0 Methodology critique 1 0 0 0 0 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Literature suggestions 0 0 0 1 0 Data analysis feedback 1 0 0 0 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 1 0 0 0 0 I received reviews completely different the same paper moved from accepted as it is to too negative to be pubblished - user-868311
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 0 1 Methodology critique 0 0 0 1 0 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 1 0 0 Literature suggestions 0 1 0 0 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 0 1 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 0 1 A good criticism about the experimental tools, data analysis and the discussion of the results are the most valuable comment that you can get. Rarely some reviewers send good literature recommendations, these suggestions are mainly associated to their own works. - user-68365
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 0 1 Methodology critique 0 0 0 0 1 Writing and presentation feedback 0 1 0 0 0 Literature suggestions 0 0 1 0 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 0 1 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 0 1 These rating represent what I'd find useful - the problem is that about 95% of the reviews I receive for my papers do not provide helpful comments on these aspects, and often comments are even suggesting wrong/misleading actions that would actually make the paper worse rather than better - user-763126
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 1 0 Methodology critique 0 0 0 0 1 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Literature suggestions 0 0 0 0 1 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 0 1 Surely, the correctness of the methodology employed along with the novelty of the work (with respect to literature data) and critical discussion of the results are key aspects. - user-486679
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 0 1 Methodology critique 0 0 0 0 1 Writing and presentation feedback 0 1 0 0 0 Literature suggestions 0 1 0 0 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 0 1 What I most expect from a reviewer is a critical and constructive point of view on the experimental choice, the methodology, the analysis carried out and the conclusions drawn from the results. In my opinion, the quality of the writing or the suggestion of references to add should not be a reviewer's priority, but rather that of the editor. - user-429130
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 1 0 0 Methodology critique 0 0 0 1 0 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 0 0 1 Literature suggestions 0 0 1 0 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 1 0 0 Technical accuracy assessment: Authors may rate this as highly valuable, as it ensures the scientific integrity of their work.Methodology critique: A high rating here would indicate that authors value feedback that improves the robustness of their research design and methods.Writing and presentation feedback: This could be valuable for authors who are looking to improve clarity and readability, especially for less technical aspects of the paper.Literature suggestions: Authors may rate this moderately or highly valuable, particularly if the reviewers help them identify key studies they might have missed or if they provide a broader context for their work.Data analysis feedback: This is highly valuable for authors who rely on statistical methods or complex data analysis. Authors may find feedback here critical for improving the rigor of their findings.Discussion and interpretation insights: This could be valuable for authors looking for input on how to present their findings within the larger field of research. - user-630519
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 1 0 Methodology critique 0 0 0 0 1 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 0 0 1 Literature suggestions 0 0 1 0 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 0 1 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 0 1 A flawed study design or lack of proper controls can introduce bias, irreproducibility, or misleading conclusions. If such methodological weaknesses go unnoticed, they may compromise future research built upon these findings. Similarly, robust statistical assessment is crucial to ensure results are not driven by chance, bias, or inappropriate modeling. Peer reviewers play a key role in identifying better statistical approaches, missing controls, and improved data presentation strategies. Moreover, misinterpretation of findings can lead to overstated claims, undermining credibility and public trust in science. A weak discussion section further reduces a study’s impact and applicability, limiting its influence on future research and policymaking. By addressing these critical areas, peer review strengthens the rigor, reliability, and relevance of scientific work. - user-753537
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 1 0 0 Methodology critique 0 0 0 0 1 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 1 0 0 Literature suggestions 0 1 0 0 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 0 1 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 0 1 I mostly value methodological input - user-914553
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 0 1 Methodology critique 0 0 1 0 0 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Literature suggestions 0 0 1 0 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 0 1 Me and my students are completely fluent in English (some of them are native, meaning they only know English!), however when some reviewers see our names (non-English) there is a bias toward the criticism of the language used, even though it is completely accurate. - user-444164
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 1 0 0 Methodology critique 0 0 1 0 0 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Literature suggestions 0 0 0 0 1 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 0 1 When reviewers are willing to share their insight and expertise, it helps make my paper get more polished and rich in content. - user-596421
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 1 0 Methodology critique 0 0 0 0 1 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Literature suggestions 0 0 0 1 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 0 1 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 0 1 None - user-905145
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 0 1 Methodology critique 0 0 0 0 1 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 1 0 0 Literature suggestions 0 0 0 1 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 0 1 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 0 1 Most valuable among this iş the discussion insights for me - user-894724
1 - Not valuable 2 3 4 5 - Extremely valuable Technical accuracy assessment 0 0 0 1 0 Methodology critique 0 0 0 0 1 Writing and presentation feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Literature suggestions 0 0 1 0 0 Data analysis feedback 0 0 0 1 0 Discussion and interpretation insights 0 0 0 1 0 The methodology is the heart of a manuscript; if you have done something good, it will attract readers all over the globe and pitch some novel research areas for the future. One must focus on the methodology one follows and discuss the results accurately to explain the potential of the research.
user-648091
03/14/2025 03:33