When reviewing manuscript for many Journals, an obligatory question list is included in which a reviewer has to judge the general interest and quality of the work, often in the form of a percentage. I.e. does this work fall in the best 10%?
Personally, I think this is a job for the Editors, not the reviewers, who are often specialists in the exact subject of the paper and thus do not necessarily have the correct overview to give a meaningful answer to this question. Editor, on the other hand, see many more papers, even if more cursorily, so they can make these judgements much better. The reviewer role should be much more limited to judging the technical quality of the work, and can always include a voluntary remark if they want to comment on the perceived interest.
If there are any readers, what is your opinion on this?
Personally, I think this is a job for the Editors, not the reviewers, who are often specialists in the exact subject of the paper and thus do not necessarily have the correct overview to give a meaningful answer to this question. Editor, on the other hand, see many more papers, even if more cursorily, so they can make these judgements much better. The reviewer role should be much more limited to judging the technical quality of the work, and can always include a voluntary remark if they want to comment on the perceived interest.
If there are any readers, what is your opinion on this?
No comments:
Post a Comment