the reason why for the e-mail?

[ahmet]

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

You can always decline, but the issue is that if you agree first and then realize that you won't be able to provide helpful feedback, then the manuscript just sits there and the editor has to find a new reviewer which can take time. Generally, one should have a good sense after reading the abstract whether ones background is sufficient to review it (though I had one or two bait-and-switch manuscripts). 

okay. This was helpful really. I shall have 14 days but after reviewing full article, I shall try to update whether I am willing to make detailed assessment (i.e. to review it) or not with the best timely manner however possible. 

 

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Yes normally reviewers are folks who successfully publish articles. But the fact that you have been submitting might why editors have your contact info. It is still unusual and probably points to the changing publishing landscape (and some quality issues in science in general- though not sure how much is real and how much is just part of getting old).

 

some last questions: 

1)will I be able to send messages to handling editor or can I do that now (including a question: the reason why  he did select me)

2) there are some details about me but unfortunately I am not willing to explain. the second question here is: will the authors see my comments / review report or will the report be open only to handling editor?

Thank you 

 

Edited February 12 by ahmet

[swansont]

8 hours ago, ahmet said:

so, do you mean that the selection was not a mistake, it was by their demand (and free will),Right ? 

if yes, and what do you think  on what I should do?

will it be logical if I accept. I know you will presumably think like: "this is your decision, if you want you can accept , if not you can decline"

but I want to ask more, what will I have as a benefit (if I accept) if the understandings I made are correct here?

someone may think like : "you will be a reviewer of scientific article" but... are there some more embodiment?

a clue for you to make a constructive but personalzed comment: I think the article abstract might not be sufficiently or directly relevant to my interests. (Currently I cannot see the full article, just abstract is viewable)

A lot of people in science feel an obligation to review articles because others review their submissions. Even if the article is rejected, somebody spent time on it. The system doesn't work if people shirk their responsibilities.

But if you feel it’s not something you can do, because you’re not familiar enough with the material, you should say no.

4 hours ago, Genady said:

My mentor's advice was that if a journal asks to recommend possible reviewers, recommend authors from your references - it will improve chances to get positive reviews. I did so once and received a very good review indeed. (This does not apply to the OP, evidently.)

That’s basically what I did. The community of my sort of physics was pretty small at that time; there weren’t six degrees of freedom. It was more like two or maybe three.

[ahmet]

unfortunately it is late now. I accepted but... it is containing a bit difficult contexts even if not wholly.

and do not know what to do now. 

but I cannot see decline button now. just it shows a link to message to send to handling editor.

[CharonY]

Just contact the editor and let them know that you cannot review it.

[ahmet]

is there a bad scenario if I revew the article but it is not found as expected? 

I think there should not be, because as you say I have  no earning and I do not know  the reason why I was invited.

after entering to editorial manager, I saw that I submitted three manuscripts to journal but some of them were removed without any decision whille a decision available for one as I remember. 

Edited February 13 by ahmet

[CharonY]

14 hours ago, ahmet said:

is there a bad scenario if I revew the article but it is not found as expected? 

I think there should not be, because as you say I have  no earning and I do not know  the reason why I was invited.

after entering to editorial manager, I saw that I submitted three manuscripts to journal but some of them were removed without any decision whille a decision available for one as I remember. 

If a subpar review is provided, it is mostly a waste of time and the authors need to wait longer for a decision, which can impact their careers.

[ahmet]

8 hours ago, CharonY said:

If a subpar review is provided, it is mostly a waste of time and the authors need to wait longer for a decision, which can impact their careers.

I am expected or required to provide the report in 14 days. but the journal has sent me that they do not look for a report in strength lenghty.

so may I ask if I present the report, will this be a normal peer review?

I remember, I sent papers to some journals and could not receive a report more than 3 months. there are some cases or friends expresing that too much longer times are also experienced. Thus, I asked that question. 

note please,I know that waiting a report for a manuscript and review time range are not same. But I wanted to ask,though. 

[CharonY]

Generally, a normal peer review is prepared by an expert in the field. If one is not qualified to evaluate and improve the manuscript, the review should be ignored by the editor and they will need to look for a new reviewer and give them time to write a review. As many reviewers are very busy this adds to delays. In your shoes I would not like to waste my or anyone else's time.

[ahmet]

I was not asking the formal qualifications. I was just pointing out to timely manner. Anyway, I think swansont's comment is more realistic in this theme or it seems so.

 

Thanks

Edited February 14 by ahmet

[ahmet]

hi, I completed the review, and may anyone explain whether I could share my recognition of reviewer certificate wherever I want?

[iNow]

Nope. Also, sure. Whatever. 

[ahmet]

On 2/13/2024 at 1:58 AM, swansont said:

A lot of people in science feel an obligation to review articles because others review their submissions. Even if the article is rejected, somebody spent time on it. The system doesn't work if people shirk their responsibilities.

But if you feel it’s not something you can do, because you’re not familiar enough with the material, you should say no.

That’s basically what I did. The community of my sort of physics was pretty small at that time; there weren’t six degrees of freedom. It was more like two or maybe three.

1)

On 2/12/2024 at 8:43 PM, CharonY said:

Generally speaking, if you have not been successfully through the peer-review process, it is not ideal to agree to write a review. It is time-consuming especially if you are not familiar with the literature in the field. 

 

If you mean to say what benefits you will have: none. Peer-review is a free service provided by scholars. I also do not want to be mean, but your writing is sometimes difficult to understand. A review written with similar issues would unfortunately not be helpful.

2)

Hi again, the journal has sent me a new manuscript again for evaluation. Two points:

From what I understood by CharonY & swansont's comments under this thread (appears above)

1) There is no benefit for me according to CharonY but

2) in spite of this it is understandable that swansont seems like encouraging.

Two questions:

1) show me please a logic reason on why to conduct a review (even if I have no benefit) ?

2) swansont, as expressed your comment seems encouraging, but why? (Please pay attention to CharonY's opinion too)

Thanks

 

 

external question:  Are reviewers responsible for unexpected but probable circumstances such as:

-- >> in case an article they handle contains copyright issue or plagiarised material (This is just an assumption)?

 

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, ahmet said:

Two questions:

1) show me please a logic reason on why to conduct a review (even if I have no benefit) ?

2) swansont, as expressed your comment seems encouraging, but why? (Please pay attention to CharonY's opinion too)

Thanks

CharonY is correct in terms of monetary benefit, and that there is no other direct benefit to you. There is an indirect benefit in that peer review requires reviewers. If nobody does it, the system grinds to a halt. If you expect others to review things you write, you need to occasionally review articles.