✳flâneur — a map of the web's best reading

How to peer review scientfic work

matt.might.net · 1,552 words · saved by 1 readers

I've been asking my graduate students to perform peer reviews of scientific work in areas where they know more than I do. They've done an excellent job, but I've also spent time repeating advice on how to write a good peer review. I've compiled that advice for graduate students writing their first reviews. The key principle to writing a good peer review is easy to understand, but more difficult to implement than one would expect: Modern life is fraught with agents that blunt empathy. Peer reviewers must mitigate these agents. Read on for my tips. I've written a few hundred peer reviews. The dominant factor in whether I wrote a high- or low-quality review was decision fatigue. Decision fatigue impacts far more than peer review. As humans, we make decisions all day long. Each decision draws from a finite (but replenishable) cognitive resource. Reviewing an entire scientific manuscript drains that resource. The book Willpower is a compelling survey of the research in this regard: I recomm

How to peer review scientfic work How to peer review [ article index ] [ ] [ @mattmight ] [ rss ] I've been asking my graduate students to perform peer reviews of scientific work in areas where they know more than I do. They've done an excellent job, but I've also spent time repeating advice on how to write a good peer review. I've compiled that advice for graduate students writing their first reviews. Peer review distills a paper to its essence. The key principle to writing a good peer review is easy to understand, but more difficult to implement than one would expect: Review the manuscript a

Explore this link on the map →

related reading