what's at stake for a peer reviewer?

[electricpete]

There's someone in my field that has thoroughly impressed me with his knowledge.... even in the narrow areas that I've studied very closely he can talk intelligently and usually knows more than me. He has also helped me out on occasion and I'd like to help him if I can easily do so.

Recently he asked me to do a peer review of an article he is publishing for Elsevier (I'm not sure if there is a specific journal or what).
He sent me a copy of the article and said that Elsevier will be contacting me (they haven't yet).

I've never been involved in any peer review process before and have a lot of questions. Maybe once Elsevier contacts me I'll know more, but I'm anxious about this review (I'm not sure how much time to invest in doing a thorough review of an extremely detailed paper.

Basically I'm wondering what's at stake for me as a peer reviewer?
1. What do I have to lose if I review something that later tuns out to have some serious flaws I didn't see?

(as far as I can tell reviewers names aren't published, so only Elsevier would think badly of me and perhaps my integrity and self esteem takes a hit).​

2. What do I have to gain from doing the review?

(as far as I can tell only good will from the person whose paper I reviewed and whatever knowledge I gain in the process).​

Maybe the above questions are straightforward, but since I've never been through the process before I'm wondering if I'm missing anything.






=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

 

[waross]

Welcome to the Tech Side Pete.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[electricpete]

Thanks Bill!

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

 

[MintJulep]

In my experience, peer reviewers usually, but not always, remain anonymous to the paper's author and if the paper is published to the rest of the world.

What's at stake if you miss something? Your pride.

You will not be the only peer reviewer.

What do you have to gain?

A degree of satisfaction that you have in some way contributed to "the scientific process".

Some knowledge.

 

[electricpete]

peer reviewers usually, but not always, remain anonymous to the paper's author

I looked at Elsevier's peer review process

https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review

It looks like they discuss both blind and open reviews. So it's not out of the question that the author knows the reviewer.
But looking at the block diagram, it looks like the editor chooses the peer reviewers.
That makes more sense. If the author of a paper could choose his own reviewers that would let him stack the deck. But clearly in this case it was the author who chose me.

He mentioned some things about his discussion with Elsevier about the difficulty in finding reviewers that would finish the job. Apparently some never completed their review.
Maybe he is doing a hail mary trying to work around their system and get his own reviewer somehow. I'll see if I can find out more. It'll be interesting to see if I actually hear from Elsevier.


=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

 

[IRstuff]

Certainly, the editor still has the final say, even if the author makes suggestions. To some degree, that's inevitable, since it's unlikely that any editor would know every possible peer for every possible topic covered, even in fairly narrowly defined journals, since it's much more likely that an author would know who their peers are. I would expect that the editor would do some level of due diligence, and may reject the author's suggestions, particularly if there's some appearance of possible collusion or coercion.

There have been "journals" that have gotten in trouble because there are only so many peers to go around, so poor choices had been made. One issue is that because there's more on-line content, it's easier for a new "journal" to start publishing, but without the stable of known-good reviewers.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[MintJulep]

I understand that finding peer reviewers is difficult.

Willing and competent are both necessary.

 

[EdStainless]

I review papers to technical conferences regularly. Some organizations provide a checklist, others leave you to your own devices. If they don't provide one I make one up. It does take some time to do a good job.
I did a paper that was very math heavy. I sent back a review and stated that I had not verified the math, but that if the author provided detailed step by step solutions I would be willing to. When the paper published it had much less math in it.
This year I co-authored a paper and it was sent to me for review. That one was easy, and I did find a typo in it.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy

 

[Artisi]

OP, very likely the author doesn't fully understand the peer review process, possibly he is asking for an initial review from you prior to his submission to Elsevier for review, acceptance and publication.
I do many initial reviews, mainly for language, syntax, continuity etc, for students and academics who's first language isn't English - this is necessary prior to submission to the journal they wish to publish in.
This is vastly different to a journal asking for a peer review.

It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. (Sherlock Holmes - A Scandal in Bohemia.)