“How does one become a reviewer for Nature journals?” asks Wen Jiang of Canada’s University of Toronto in Nature Nanotechnology‘s Nature Network forum. Most graduate students and postdocs help their supervisors to review papers, he notes, but how can they jump from ’subcontracted’ to ‘designated’ reviewer?
Associate editor Ai Lin Chun replies that she is looking for referees with a good publication track record, and that the journal often selects new and younger faculty members. In a recent example, an eminent professor was too busy to review, but recommended his talented graduate student. The student provided a fine, detailed and thoughtful report. “When this happens,” Chun writes, “it is not so easy to forget!”
She enjoys thoughtful, well-balanced reports that suggest improvements to the authors, all in a timely manner. “We do have a chasing system,” she says, “but it is certainly not my favourite thing to do!” Chun adds that sometimes even established professors provide terrible reports. “We feel less enthusiastic in asking them to review again.”
-
From the blogosphere
An archive of the "From the Blogosphere" column on the Authors page in Nature, highlighting nature.com blog posts of interest to scientists in their role as authors and peer-reviewers. We welcome comments and suggestions.
-
Becoming a peer-reviewer -- 19 June 2008
- Date:
- Thursday, 19 Jun e 2008 - 11:50 UTC
Last updated: Thursday, 19 Jun 2008 - 11:50 UTC
-
Comments
-
I enrolled in a mentored review program for one of the top journals of my field. After a couple of mentored reviews, I was recommended as official reviewer. The value of the exercise was enormous, and I do enjoy my manuscript reviewing a lot.
Although one always may want to establish a balance between how much one reviews and how much one publishes, there is so much to learn from reviewing that it would be a pity to start that only when you become faculty.
I agree, Massimo. From the point of view of a journal looking for new reviewers, it is hard to find the younger people before they have become “established”. This is one reason why it is so valuable for senior scientists to teach their reviewing skills to junior members of their teams, via sharing the review task or by other means, and to recommend talented younger scientists to the journal — hence, the journal becomes aware of these scientists more quickly, while they are still early in their careers, and can add them to their reviewer lists. I can certainly endorse what Ai Lin says, that a journal editor is delighted to discover a new reviewer by this method, and is keen to ask that person to review again, when other manuscripts in the area are submitted.
Okay, so what if a young scientist does not have older esteemed colleagues who want to recommend them as a potential reviewer, for fear of being replaced? And is a publication track record necessary for writing a good (and timely) review?
I would surmise that any editor in search of referees could advertise that fact directly on their journal website and give some (perhaps preselected based on publication criteria) volunteers a try, in addition to the reviewers they really have selected. Those newbies who write good reviews as per the editor’s standards, can be called up to bat the next time around.
There is some discussion about this going on in the Publishing and the New Millennium forum, Heather, if you are interested.
Certainly journals can state their criteria for a good reviewer’s report, as we do and I am sure others, but I think that being advised about how to write a referee’s report by a scientist who has done lots of it is invaluable: I remember my supervisor showing me how he did it, and there is a great deal of wisdom that can be imparted in this direct way. A typical way to teach someone to peer-review is for the grad student to attempt a first draft of the review and for the supervisor or other mentor to go through it, and send it to the journal as a combined effort.
This provides some calibration for the journal and is, I think, more useful to the author of the paper than the journal just giving a someone a try.
BTW, Heather, I never heard of anyone fearing being replaced as a peer-reviwer on the journal’s books! The opposite, in fact.
That’s because I’m still young enough to find it fun to bring my two cents to other people’s papers, and to find it painful when it is done to mine. I’m sure the former, at least, will change at some point, but I must have a bit of inner editor to satisfy. Too bad s/he won’t work for me.