On Peerwith we see an increase in requests in Manuscript review. Peer review at academic journals can take several months. And then, sometimes, your paper can be rejected for easily-avoidable reasons. At Peerwith, you can find an expert who can check your paper before submission, improving the paper and increasing the chance of a speedy acceptance. One such expert is Ebtissam Erraqi, expert on Peerwith. Ebtissam is a very experienced peer reviewer. If you want to hire her, visit her Expert page here: http://peerwith.expert/Erraqi
Ebtissam explains to us the different types of reviewers:
Throughout the journey to the international publications in high-profile journals, matriculation and evaluation of the submitted manuscripts diverge according to several factors. These factors are attributed to one, or more, of the articulating pillars: the impact factor of a journal, the editor, the peer-reviewers and the submitted manuscript. However, I can guarantee that no ready manuscript can be unsolicited.
Authors, especially inexperienced ones, may misjudge the correct venue for publishing their work either by selecting a predatory journal or by submitting an out-of-scope manuscript. All works submitted to predatory journals, either ready or unready, are accepted in a matter of days or week for a several hundred dollars. This turns to be disgraceful in the resume of the author(s) because the manuscripts receive no rigorous review and demonstrate, on publishing, glaring errors. To avoid such errors, the overview and indexing of the targeted journal, which elaborates on its scope, vision and impact, must be viewed carefully. There, the readership of this journal and the probability of boosting citation in this platform can be anticipated. A handy tip that can help you choose the right venue is consulting your list of references. Put simply, you should be citing two or more publications that are affiliated to the best-hit journal. Moreover, you may like to consult automatic “journal finder”, which recommend journals based on algorithmic clustering of your abstract to the overview of the target journals, or you may consult human EXPERTS. The latter, if reachable, is better because experts might discuss the reasons of their recommendation and can give some advice to the authors before they initiate their submission process.
When reviewers are assigned a reviewing task, a hyperlink is activated to enable the reviewer to submit the appropriate recommendations after viewing the submission. On finalizing such a required review reports, it becomes optional for every reviewer, in several online editorial systems, to view the other review reports written about the same manuscript. Although the manuscript receives an average of 3 review reports, some editors assign 15-20 reviewers towards securing these 3 reports. In rare cases, six or seven reviewers respond. I was interested in reading every review report and every editorial decision letter I could have accessed.
Personally implicating on my history of publishing, reviewing and editing, I appreciated seven types of journals, seven types of editors, and seven types of reviewers. This article highlights ONLY my proposed typology of the peer-reviewers.
- The Benevolent: The benevolent reviewer makes every effort to keep the publishable manuscript accepted. This includes checking the references for originality and suggesting more authentic ones (e.g., meta-analyses, systematic reviews, double blind clinical trials and so on). The Benevolent reviewer suggests corrections for the linguistic errors and advises about the validity of the study design. In submitting his/her report, concerns are communicated very politely.
- The Idealistic: The idealistic reviewer appreciates the exerted effort and highlights the strength points in every submission. Moreover, s/he does double check the plagiarism content, examines very carefully the documentations that support the findings (e.g., supplementary files, radio-imaging, photomicrographs, microarray dendograms and so on). The idealistic reviewer underpins the literature for scanning similar works and revises the linguistic content at the syntactic and semantic levels. Statistical tests are usually repeated for confirming the significance. Typically, the idealistic reviewer uses formalities in addressing the author(s) and does not compromise the anonymity.
- The Mechanic: The mechanic responds genuinely to new challenges and focuses on the novelty of the work as well as on the typical architecture of the academic research article. Following a systematic methodology of appraising the reviewed work, the mechanic reviewer is able to suggest creative ways for improving the manuscript, regardless of the impressive look the submission may demonstrate. Fundamental to accepting the articles is supporting the drawn conclusion by unequivocal evidence. Most often, the amendable shortcomings are signed out as minor issues while study design and method soundness capture the mechanic’s rapt attention. Comments on reference formatting and (in)consistency are least important to this type of reviewer. However, citing inaccurate information from unauthentic resources might warrant rejecting the manuscript. The mechanic reviewer is keen on scanning all articles in press and on recommending visualization of the article, via tables and figures, towards boosting its citation.
- The Incompetent: The incompetent reviewer enlists a barrage of grammatical, punctuation and formatting errors in every submission but misses evaluating the technical work. If the academic content is negotiated, no more than Google-knowledge is evidenced. The incompetent reviewer usually recommends his/her irrelevant publication to be cited by imposing a twist on the submission. Marshalled with formalities, the incompetent reviewer judges most of the manuscripts, which report novelty, as unauthentic and unreliable. Stylistically, s/he demonstrates a redundant use of personal pronouns, prefers simple, yet very short, sentences and shows, most often, grammatical and punctuation errors if compound sentences are attempted. Pretending to be a rigid moralist, the ethics, codes and standards are highly and pedantically spoken of.
- The Perfectionist: The perfectionist reviewer reports his evaluation of every section, typically over three A4-sized pages or so, where the checklist is evaluated item by item. Although this guarantees a microscopic examination, most of authors consider it redundant.
- The Traditional: Although the traditional reviewer is mindful to the ideal architecture of academic writing, novelty of the work is always unnoticed. The integrity of the manuscript, as a block or a unit separated from the cumulative literature, is only checked. Classically, no extracurricular activities are performed towards suggesting effective ways of improvement.
- The Stingy: Evaluates the overall manuscript in few lines and submits the “reject” recommendation without advising about possible ways of improving the submission.
That said, I think that I can help authors find their solicited MECHANIC by offering a paid manuscript review service. Other than recommending two or three fitting journals for the ready manuscripts, I can give advice on improving the style of writing, visualization of data, design of the study, and soundness of the methodology.
Connect to Ebtissam Erraqi directly via her Expert page: http://peerwith.expert/Erraqi