Comments
Hiroshi Uechi
04 June, 2024The peer reviews in any fields are not trusted, because biased research-group-oriented reviews are hard to avoid. These research groups are not interersted in discoveries and progresses. They are interested in political powers to get budjet for their group. We proposed a new technologies based on a physical theory, and the Japanese NSF committees rejected our request for funding for several years without explaining reasons clearly, no open discussions, but this year, foureign experimental group constructed a prototype of the new technology we discussed, and they refered to our paper. A commitee with a prejudice, discrinating authoritative artitude, is really toxic to science.
Saad A. El-Sayed
04 June, 2024The single-blind or single-anonymized review model is the most popular kind of peer review used in scientific journals. In this kind of review, the reviewers know who the writers are, but the authors don't know who the reviewers are. So, in this way, discretion and context are balanced. This method, which is most frequently utilized in different scientific domains, enables reviewers to offer candid critiques without upsetting the authors. It also enables reviewers to gain contextual information by drawing on their knowledge of the authors' prior works. It is meant that reviewers will find it simpler to provide thorough and frank feedback on an article without worrying that the author will take it against them because of their anonymity. However, revealing too much about the author could divert attention from the work itself, as the reviewer should be concentrating only on the work itself. They might also be inclined to offer a more critical assessment of a piece written by a competitor. Risk of unconscious bias on the part of the reviewer, who might evaluate the work without even realizing it based on personal information about the author. Because individuals may submit reviews anonymously, some reviewers may write hasty, impolite, or unjust assessments—things they might not do if their name was attached to the comments. Although this enables the reviewers to be completely open about their thoughts, their knowledge of the author's identity can skew their assessments and lead them to discriminate on the basis of, say, gender or national origin.
Mridul M. Panditrao
05 June, 2024
The definition should have an additional and a valid point and it should be as follows:
"a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, without any prejudice or bias. ”
I have been a Peer Reviewer of multiples of indexed journals, both national and international, for last more than 35 years. The responsibility of the peer reviewer transcends, routine and mundane barriers. The individual needs to do the job, with a high level of efficiency and knowledge, morality and ethical responsibility. Each of the article which is recommended, is a potential influencer for some naive and young professional, who may try to emulate the matter in the article.
Dr. Perumal Pitchandi
06 June, 2024
Peer Review must double blind review. The most important one is the suitable reviewer for the same domain.
Thanking you.
Durga Mani Gautam
09 June, 2024In my opinion, for scientific research articles that are to be published in the Journals Double Blind Review is the most appropriate. In Single Blind Review the editor may become bias. Open peer review by the editor is not appropriate for the articles to publish in the journals. Open peer review is commonly practiced for the preparation of thesis or dissertation. This is usually done by the supervisors. In case of collaborative or joint research, team leader or team members should have open peer review to improve the article before submitting for publication.
Abdelazim Negm
04 June, 2024Protecting science from pollution is one of the most significant elements in the publication industry. Therefore, all parties should collaborate to keep science clean and sustainable for use by future generations. Therefore, I suggest the following:
Any of the listed models can be adopted, provided that authors, editors, and reviewers are transparent and behave ethically without any bias. If any bias is detected from (a) the author, the manuscript should be rejected, and the author should be prevented from publishing in the journal again, at least for 1-2 years; (b) the editor, he/she should be excluded from the journal for at least 2-3 years and (c) reviewer, he/she should not be review for the journal for 5 years. If the bias or any unethical action is detected again, any of them should be excluded from dealing with the journal and/or maybe with the journal's publisher.