3
SciPoll 734: Are you getting good peer reviews of your papers?
On average, how useful are the peer reviews you receive?
Results
(183 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- Somewhat usefuluser-657321Reviews range from utterly useless and damaging to very helpful; but at best I hope for a neutral review that only tries to spot blunders, which I tend not to make.
- Somewhat usefuluser-287804As mentioned above, some reviewers really take the time and provide very helpful feedback, while others are quick to reject or even accept without much explanation.
- Somewhat usefuluser-47498Generally good content, but lacks specificity.
- Usefuluser-683654That also depends on the expertise of the reviewer.
- Somewhat usefuluser-660265Not all of my peer reviews are performed by well-qualified scientists. Sometimes, I have received very good, constructive criticism with valuable comments, but there have also been a few times when I received very poor, inconsistent, and contradictory reviews.
- Somewhat usefuluser-504085when they lack the knowledge of the subject area, then the reviews are poorly evaluated.
- Usefuluser-717875I value research obviously we look forward to genuine authentic research evidence
- Somewhat usefuluser-381514It all depends on the reviewer.
- Usefuluser-633763Considering the ranking of the journals, mostly the reputational ones send back a comprehensive report by reviewers or editors. This report can support rearranging, restructuring, and revising the due sections in the new draft.
- Somewhat usefuluser-940118Often the comments are unhelpful but sometimes they do improve the paper
- Usefuluser-252840Quite often they have been useful
- Usefuluser-182571Most are useful, some are of excellent quality, some are somewhat useful, once or twice I have received trash-quality reviews.
- Not useful at alluser-68365see above
- Usefuluser-763126I would rate them as "useful", despite it mainly depends on the seriousness and competence of the Reviewers.
- Somewhat usefuluser-429130"The reviews I receive tend to focus on certain parts of the manuscript (like the introduction or conclusion) but lack depth or critique in other areas (such as methodology or data analysis). This makes the feedback partially useful but not comprehensive."
- Usefuluser-863705In many cases the reviews help me to improve the manuscript
- Somewhat usefuluser-630519On average, the peer reviews I receive are somewhat useful. While they often provide valuable insights and help refine certain aspects of the manuscript, they sometimes lack depth or specificity. I guess that due to time constraints and the increasing burden on reviewers, feedback may be too general, focusing on minor revisions rather than addressing critical methodological or conceptual issues. In some cases, comments are contradictory or suggest changes that do not significantly enhance the manuscript’s scientific quality. Nevertheless, peer review remains an essential part of the publishing process, and even when not entirely comprehensive, it still offers an external perspective that can improve clarity, strengthen arguments, and ensure adherence to journal standards
- Usefuluser-947768Helps to improve the technical quality of my works.
- Somewhat usefuluser-753537Quality of those that do 'properly' review the manuscript is generally still ok, but I more often get reviews from less reviewers, or e.g. only 1 or 2 'real' reviews and 1 or 2 reviews that provide general remarks only, e.g. only stating that it's a good study, or only a remark on the abstract, a typo, or a reference that needs to be added.
- Somewhat usefuluser-886047As mentioned above, some reviewers only provide superficial comments
- Somewhat usefuluser-561124Some just want to state that "they are better than you".
- Somewhat usefuluser-914553They are useful when they do constructive comments or fix errors.
- Usefuluser-234128There is the odd case where the reviewer fails to understand key aspects of the theory, method, analysis, etc
But those are not that common and most reviews are quite helpful. - Usefuluser-766670Sometimes the problem is the editors, decide on flat rejection before the review
- Somewhat usefuluser-203045Generally it allows a better version of the manuscript by taking into account reveiwers' remarks.
- Usefuluser-444164It help me to refine the details of my papers, but sometimes the reviewers can be picky on the minor details.
- Usefuluser-927405They vary too, but I have given the average
- Usefuluser-596421Feedback from the peer reviewers has significantly improved my final publications
- Somewhat usefuluser-537935Mostly not useful, only asking for citation or commenting on irrelevant subjects.
- Usefuluser-905145Generally reviewers like our papers and their responses are constructive for us
- Usefuluser-894724Views matter; a work analyzed by someone out of the box will sometimes give you an extraordinary direction and better results.
user-648091
03/14/2025 03:27