- #1
andresB
- 629
- 375
A week ago I accepted to review a paper for a top journal. I was contacted because I've published several papers on the same semi-obscure topic in the last two years. I accepted because the abstract was interesting and thought provoking.
However, after having access to the full paper I discovered the content to be far away from my expertise. I had to study a lot of new things just to have an idea of what the authors are even saying.
Being a reviewer seems to be a very hard job, three weeks to understand and give a solid opinion on a work that condensates months or even years of investigation.
So, how people even do this thing called peer review? any advice?
However, after having access to the full paper I discovered the content to be far away from my expertise. I had to study a lot of new things just to have an idea of what the authors are even saying.
Being a reviewer seems to be a very hard job, three weeks to understand and give a solid opinion on a work that condensates months or even years of investigation.
So, how people even do this thing called peer review? any advice?