Citation Context

...to the journal and the scientific community” (p. 47).sObviously, reviewers should be knowledgeable about the topic and have a clearsunderstanding of the historical context in which the work was done (=-=Benos et al., 2003-=-).sSometimes a diverse group of reviewers is purposefully sought to gather opinions fromsvarious, perhaps even opposing, perspectives. This approach has advantages, particularlyswhen critiquing qualit...

Citation Context

...ssarily guarantee an easy ride when attempting to convince journal reviewers that it is worthy of publication. Unrealistic, unintelligible, conflicting and circular reviewer comments, as well as author misinterpretation, makes overcoming the review process a lottery. Through documenting and sharing our experience of navigating the peer review process the aim of this paper is to provide a personal account and reflection of the practice. As peer review is central to journal publishing an extensive literature exists on the process bridging a variety of disciplines [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. Real or perceived failings and dissatisfaction with the process are evidenced by the extensive literature on the subject [8] [25] [30] [32] [33] [34]. How to undertake a review has been discussed [35] [36], while strategies to improve the chances of a manuscript being accepted for publication have been considered [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. Examining the manuscript review process from an author’s perspective once the review process has been completed has however received scant attentio...