TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Mistakes Reviewers Make

50 点作者 sjrd超过 9 年前

5 条评论

mbrundle超过 9 年前
Academic journal article reviewing is a very peculiar world, and I wasn&#x27;t impressed by what I saw of it. My observations (as a former postdoc in biomedical research) were:<p>Reviewers get no pay or remuneration, pauce guidelines, and no training (which is where articles like this can make a difference). There are no tangible career benefits for doing it (other than &#x27;everyone else does it&#x27;), because you won&#x27;t get any sort of official record for papers that you&#x27;ve reviewed. (And because it&#x27;s single-blind, you&#x27;ll never be credited on the paper.) There&#x27;s very little feedback or quality control on reviews exerted by editors. You can&#x27;t ever discuss the paper with your fellow reviewer(s). And it&#x27;s an enormous time sink - reviewing a paper properly takes at least two hours, depending on the length and complexity. This is a real issue when you&#x27;re in a field where doing lab research, writing your own grants and papers, reading the latest literature to keep up-to-date with the field, and possibly doing some teaching or admin, already takes up most of your time.<p>It&#x27;s a seriously broken system. I inherently like the idea of doing reviews because it feels like you&#x27;re giving back something to the community, but it ended up feeling like this good will was being taken advantage of by the journals, particularly the for-profit ones. I&#x27;m amazed that the whole system continues to work as well as it does.
评论 #11056252 未加载
评论 #11056457 未加载
susan_hall超过 9 年前
This part reminds of some of the job interviews I&#x27;ve gone to, as a software developer:<p>&quot;Detail-oriented: New researchers are often immersed in the minutiae of research, such as building software, collecting data, and running experiments. This means that they tend to focus on details (which may or may not be significant) rather than the bigger picture.&quot;<p>I am in my 40s, yet when I go to a job interview I am often interviewed by people in their 20s. I have 20 years experience with dozens of technologies. And yet, just recently, I found myself facing a long list of questions about the details of specific technologies, for instance, NodeJS. While I may not know the details about NodeJS, I had no trouble learning Struts and then Spring and then Ruby On Rails. Is there any reason to think I can&#x27;t pick up the details of NodeJS? I have done one major project with Node, is it really crucial that I know all the latest packages before I get a job at your company?<p>In these interviews I am often surprised by the focus on very specific aspects of particular technologies. Who really cares? We all need to learn some new technologies for any job, even if it is just the specifics of the software that the company has built.<p>I am often surprised at the extent to which my 20 years of experience is discounted. However, I run into this less often when I am interviewed by someone who is in their 30s or 40s or 50s -- they seem more willing to recognize that I&#x27;ve had a long career and I&#x27;ve learned a lot of tech.
评论 #11054954 未加载
评论 #11055429 未加载
scott_s超过 9 年前
I commonly have academic computer science papers rejected for a variety of these reasons. That is, the reviewers do not have any factual or methodology concerns; they don&#x27;t think we&#x27;re wrong, or that we made any mistakes designing our experiments. They just don&#x27;t like it.<p>I&#x27;ve started to call these &quot;Your baby is ugly&quot; reviews.
kartikkumar超过 9 年前
I don&#x27;t think this has a lot to do with being a new reviewer. My experience has in fact been that due to time pressure, senior researchers make decisions on papers for completely the wrong reasons. They pervert the cause of science because of the rat race. The one that really sticks out in the list, that I&#x27;m a stickler for, is &quot;details&quot;.<p>The devil IS in the details. If a paper can&#x27;t communicate the important details, then how can you ever claim that your work is reproducible? If your work is not reproducible, then it has no place in a scientific journal. In my field, a lot of senior researchers haven&#x27;t executed a line of code in years, so the natural feeling is that the &quot;detail&quot; isn&#x27;t important. If your code is not open-source and can&#x27;t be audited, you better have the details in place.<p>Another thing that I think deserves A LOT more attention is the co-author list. There should be more in place to stop what&#x27;s all too common: people forcing themselves, especially senior researchers, on to papers that they have no business being on. The setup in a lot of academic environments is such that this can&#x27;t be tackled from the inside. I think this should be a fundamental part of a &quot;reviewer manifesto&quot;: figure out who wrote the paper and if you can&#x27;t, ask to find out.
verylongaccount超过 9 年前
Hear, hear. I would add one thing: make sure that you don&#x27;t advance claims without evidence (this goes for all scientific enterprises, not just writing reviews). Just because your review is anonymous, do not think it excuses not upholding the basic standard of science: all claims must be stated as clearly as possible and supported by evidence.
评论 #11056264 未加载