When reviewing, don’t be obnoxious. Acknowledge good stuff. Be constructive.
When reviewing for a grant or something new, always be sure to check what is the expected format of the review report. Starting from the final format can save a ton of time. Actually, start reviewing a paper by start writing the review — thinking about the final product from the beginning — may work well.
When on the receiving end, don’t just dismiss the reviews. Try to really understand what the review meant.
Studies on peer review
- Single versus Double Blind Reviewing at WSDM 2017
- Dear Reviewer 2: Go F’ Yourself
“Reviewer #2 is not the problem. Reviewer #3 is.”
- http://sunelehmann.com/2010/08/24/no-more-supporting-material/ - How can we solve “supplemental material arms race”?
- Peer review and the meat grinder by Aaron Clauset
- http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode26&storycode=417576&c1 - don’t review for free, for closed journals.
- The Nastiness Problem in Computer Science by Bertrand Meyer
- Yes, Computer Scientists Are Hypercritical by Jeannette M
- Reviewing the reviewers
- A little bias in peer review scores can translate into big money, simulation finds
- Let’s make peer review scientific
How to review
- How to review a paper
- IOP:introduction to refereeing