What’s the best (or worst) review you’ve received?

It’s Peer Review Week and we’d like to hear your thoughts
Published in Astronomy
What’s the best (or worst) review you’ve received?

Can you believe this is the fifth year of Peer Review Week?!

There’s a great post about the history of PRW on the Scholarly Kitchen if you’re keen to learn more about how it started and what it’s grown into. Most years have had a theme, from transparency to diversity, and the topic chosen for 2019 is…

‘Quality in Peer Review’

So we’re asking:

What’s the best (or worst) review you’ve ever received? And why

We’d love to hear from you so please do take the opportunity to share your thoughts and experiences on Peer Review! Simply use the comment box at the bottom of this post to share your answers.

One thing – as with any contribution to the Community, do keep in mind our Community Policy when sharing your comments (basically, be nice and stay on topic).

Got a question? Get in touch with us here.  

Please sign in or register for FREE

If you are a registered user on Research Communities by Springer Nature, please sign in

Go to the profile of Jane Greaves
over 4 years ago

"This work is likely to prove seminal, although little science may result"... I guess that was best and worst in one??

Go to the profile of Eva Amsen
over 4 years ago

It's so contradictory and confusing!

Go to the profile of Mara Salvato
over 4 years ago

The quality of a review processes depends mostly on the competence of the reviewer/referee. Few competent people bother to  find the time to be a reviewer. The net result is that the referee are often of limited experience of knowledge, which translate in reviews that are  either too superficial/sloppy, or too picky on useless points.   My best experience: writing the review for Nature Astronomy and having the editor contributing with his expertise to the draft.