Dental Chair,dental chair unit,dental unit chair,portable dental chair Foshan Ja Suo Medical Device Co., LTD , https://www.jasuodental.com
Author: Liu Zhirui Neuroscience Bulletin editorial department
Text / accidentally read the doctor 
Whether an article can be quickly accepted by journals, the most critical time nodes are often controlled by reviewers, the so-called peer reviewer system (Peer Reviewer). In the eyes of our research dogs, the reviewers are all invisible and unpredictable, and they have the power to "kill and kill."
Their image may look like this: 
It could also be like this: 
It might even be like this: 
So what is the review system that is related to the final fate of the article? Is there a legendary veto power? Xiaobian, this is the cover of the peer review and review system (Peer Review) for all the research dogs, to give you a glimpse of: 
At present, there are two most popular peer review methods in the world. According to the degree of openness of the review opinions, there are three types: traditional anonymous peer review, novel open peer review and post peer review system. The first is the most common method of review, and the latter two are less common.
An anonymous peer review, the so-called Single blind Peer Review. The reviewer is blind to the author of the submission and the expert information is kept confidential. After the article was submitted to the journal editorial department, the editor reviewed the manuscript with a certain academic authority in the field according to the content of the article, and the latter appointed experts to review. The deputy editor will review the opinions of more than two experts and make a review. Finally, the journal editor will judge the manuscript based on the reviewer's comments.
While the confidentiality of anonymous peer review is intended to reduce prejudice, because very few reviewers know that their identity will not be made public, sometimes they will make inaccurate or irrelevant opinions to the author. At the same time, subject to the reviewer's working hours, the manuscript will sometimes be dragged for a long time (this is also a small editor is also embarrassed to total drip). Moreover, in the professional field, it is sometimes difficult for editors to find the appropriate editor or expert to review the manuscript. Finally, from the perspective of academic communication, the author and the reviewer are not very interactive. Mark Henderson criticized the anonymous peer review system in his article published in the British Medical Journal: "Some papers simply do not have the required review, and some are unfair rejections."[1]
Open peer review is a review method that has been developed in recent years to improve anonymous peer review. The reviewer is completely open to the author of the submission. The editor does not assign a specific deputy editor to review the manuscript, but directly publishes the manuscript online, inviting the network experts to conduct a network review. After collecting a certain number of review comments, the editor will sort out these fragmented review comments and make a judgment on the manuscript. This review method has strengthened the interaction between reviewers, authors and researchers in the field. At the same time, the transparent review of the whole process also prevented the appearance of unfair review.
However, although this method of judging has indeed brought a fresh air to the current academic evaluation system, the shortcomings are very obvious, which directly led to its death shortly after its appearance. On June 1, 2006, Nature launched a four-month open peer review trial to observe the acceptance and recognition of open peer peer review by researchers, both as authors and reviewers. Nature's editors and publishers experimented with possible changes to the traditional peer review mechanism. Four months later, Nature's editors compiled the opinions of the parties and summarized the following factors to determine the experiment as a failure: 1) The author is worried about being plagiarized or in patent considerations and is unwilling to participate; 2) potential The reviewer believes that the open peer review is “nice to doâ€; 3) the scientific literacy of the researcher (it is easy to pull the hate value once the rejection is rejected); 4) the author and the reviewer are not very interactive. In short, the editorial work is half the battle, most of the academic value of the review is very limited - mostly general reviews, such as: doing a good job, rather than evaluating its process [2].
Another review system is based on the improvement of open review, that is, the post peer review system. Taking BMC as an example, the published article review comments and reviewer information are disclosed, but it is still not very valuable for speeding up the review of the manuscript and enhancing the three-way interaction, and the form is greater than its existence, so it will not be discussed.
So, since there are so many criticisms in peer review, is there any hope that there is no possibility of change? 
“A false reviewer cannot do without the destruction of the peer review process by the author or a third party. In many cases, the editor thought that he was in contact with the real reviewer, and in fact the other’s mailbox was already controlled by a third party. A problem usually occurs when the editor uses the reviewer's mailbox provided by the author. Of course, editing the email address that he or she searches on the Internet may also be shot.
In the Publons system, reviewers need to confirm their email address and review comments. By linking the two, journal editors can be sure that the people who communicate with themselves on the other side of the computer are the same people they see on Publons. "[3]
Lu Xun said: Hope does not matter, there is no such thing. This is like the road on the ground; in fact, there is no road on the ground, and there are more people to go, and it will become a road. In fact, no matter what scientific evaluation system is used, establish scientific research confidence, adhere to rigorous scientific research style, and fair review opinions are in our hearts! Creating a scientific academic atmosphere and purifying the scientific research ecology is the responsibility and the only way for each of our scientific research workers to shoulder! let us wait and see!
references:
1. Henderson, M., Problems with peer review. BMJ, 2010. 340: p. c1409.
2. Peer review and fraud. Nature, 2006. 444(7122): p. 971-2.
3.http://retractionwatch.com/2017/06/23/can-tracking-system-peer-reviewers-help-stop-fakes/
NB Editor takes you to the peer review and review system, and it is easy to get rejected articles.
NB editors for those who review the draft
Design lines: This is called rules, understand? ! (quoted from the movie "Old Cannon")
"Clothing Academician" Li Xiaowen
In April last year, Tumor Biology retracted 107 papers in one time, mainly from peer review and fraud, which attracted wide attention from the academic community. Unconsciously, someone has responded to this problem. By tracking the contributions of individual reviewers, the Publons platform from Web of Science attempts to reduce the emergence of false peer review issues. In early June 2017, Publons was acquired by Clarivate Analytics, a new company that owns Web of Science after Thomson Reuters. How does this platform work? Let's hear what Retraction Watch said about Publons founder Andrew Preston: