What is it about?
This article is one of three educational resources that deal with being a good peer reviewer. This first article describes why it is beneficial to be a peer reviewwer at some stage in one's career. The quality and value of science do not rest solely on the efforts of researchers who ask important questions and develop novel ways to answer them but also on the efforts of individuals who ensure that the questions are indeed important, the paths to the answers are rigorous, and the message is clear and balanced. At present, the tool most commonly used to judge scientific research is the process known as “peer review.” Peer reviewers play a key role in contributing to the quality, the value, and even the reputation of science. Yet, many individuals come up with a variety of reasons for not participating in this valuable service to the scientific community. Here I present 7 reasons I have heard for not being a peer reviewer—and why these reasons are wrong.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
Peer review serves an important role in scientific publication. You can come up with any number of excuses to avoid being a peer reviewer. So why should you be a peer reviewer? Because it is better to give and receive.
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Seven Reasons Not to Be a Peer Reviewer--And Why These Reasons Are Wrong, Clinical Chemistry, February 2012, AACC,
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2012.182618.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page