Peer Review

As a scientist I am frequently asked to review other people’s writing. Typically, it’s a scholarly journal article that I need to read. Other times it’s a textbook that needs a review. These things don’t pay (though sometimes they have perks) and take time, sometimes lots of time. So why bother?

Why should I spend hours and hours reading someone else’s paper when I could be working on my own? My job might depend upon me publishing something scholarly every year. Sometimes more than one paper. And the work I might do on reviews isn’t ‘billable,’ so if you have that kind of job, why waste your time?

Well, here’s some reasons why:

1) You get to read the latest in research even before it’s published.

2) You can keep BAD science from getting published.

3) You can learn the difference between a well-written paper and a poorly written paper, thereby improving your own work.

4) You can help someone make a good paper much, much better.

5) You can save a scientist from accidentally publishing something that has a blaring error.

Really, the peer review process is intended to make sure that anything that makes it to publication is grounded in reality. Published scientific papers should report ‘truth,’ or at least as close to truth that is possible given the current state of knowledge. Peer review is a necessary part of the scientific process. If scientists stop reviewing each other’s papers, science stops. If you’re not willing to review someone’s paper, then I’m not sure you’re doing science right.

So I keep reviewing papers whenever I’m asked. I do the best I can. And when I publish something, I’m grateful to the reviewers who looked at it, whether they remained anonymous or not, or even if their entire review is snarky. That’s okay. I learn something anyway.

And with that… I have a book to review. Cheerio!