OpenPsych forums

Full Version: How thorough should peer review be?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
There has been some recent discussion concerning the degree of thoroughness in the peer review system. Although this will always vary from reviewer to reviewer guidelines should be able to move the reviewer mean thoroughness.

Chuck thinks that we have been rushing things, i.e. that review is too light:

Chuck Wrote:I figured as much. I'm not in a hurry. I think Emil et al. are rushing these publications as it is. I'm fine with a couple of months, actually. Slow, slow hippo here. I just want to get the process started.

Meng Hu is a very thorough reviewer who replicates the entire analysis that authors submit, it seems. While laudable, it is quite a lot of work, and since reviewers work for free, it can perhaps not be expected of them to do this.

Thoughts?
I think it should be up to the individual reviewer.
I disagree. I believe that review should be short; I think when peer reviewers attach laundry lists of demands, it often weakens the paper. My reviews are usually very brief.
(2014-Jul-04, 21:26:39)Philbrick Bastinado Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree. I believe that review should be short; I think when peer reviewers attach laundry lists of demands, it often weakens the paper. My reviews are usually very brief.

I am against imposing limits on reviewers, this journal is called Open because everyone has the right to be a reviewer and the author has the right to answer or not answer the reviewers' questions. Auhtors are not compelled to answers to all reviewers' requests. Your reasoning is right only for traditional journals where the editor demands that authors accomodate all of the reviewer's whims and whishes, but here it's a different story. Welcome to OpenPsych.
Reviews saying merely "OK" or "NO" such as this, this, this, have no value in my eyes.
I agree that Philbrick's reviews mentioned above have been unhelpful. Reviews should be constructive. It is very rare that there is absolutely nothing to improve in a matter. I know that my papers have improved a lot from peer review from this journal.