Seven Reasons Not to Be a Peer Reviewer—And Why These Reasons Are Wrong

[摘要] The quality and value of science do not rest solely on the efforts of researchers who ask important questions and develop novel ways to answer them but also on the efforts of individuals who ensure that the questions are indeed important, the paths to the answers are rigorous, and the message is clear and balanced. At present, the tool most commonly used to judge scientific research is the process known as “peer review.” Peer reviewers play a key role in contributing to the quality, the value, and even the reputation of science. Yet, many individuals come up with a variety of reasons for not participating in this valuable service to the scientific community. Here I present 7 reasons I have heard for not being a peer reviewer—and why these reasons are wrong.Do not be fooled by the idea that only experts can provide good reviews. According to a senior editor at Nature (1), postdoctoral fellows are the best reviewers because “they are at the top of their game, well versed in the literature and politically naïve enough to tell the truth.” Additionally, assistant professors have been shown to produce higher-quality reviews than full professors (2), and a 2010 study (3) found that, for one specialty journal, peer-review decisions by graduate students were as stringent as the decisions by faculty peer reviewers. Experience may be a good teacher, but desire and attitude (which are not age dependent) can make up for experience. Therefore, the excuse of too little experience is a weak one.There are 3 ways to get your foot in the door. The first way is to establish a track record of publishing well-written papers that are cited by others. When editors seek potential peer reviewers, they often look at the articles cited in the submitted paper. If …

[学科分类] 过敏症与临床免疫学