Publishing papers: initial observations as an author and a referee

Three basic rules for referees

I've published 9 papers in peer-reviewed dental journals in the last 2 years and have refereed half a dozen papers regarding dental materials, adhesives, resin-based composites, adhesive cements, adhesion, marginal adaptation... Since there's no 'school' or 'course' for referees that I'm aware of, I've started developing my own style. Judging from other people's reviews of my papers, this seems to be the case with most referees out there. I know that the following are very basic rules, but sometimes, even such basic rules are not followed.

Though editors put a lot of effort in finding the right referees for a particular paper, it's possible that a paper ends up in wrong hands, with someone whose field of expertise has almost nothing to do with the subject of the paper. I've noticed very 'interesting' remarks regarding one of my papers indicating that the referee wasn't an expert in the field he/she was referring to. Obviuosly, nowadays a lot of studies are multidisciplinary and this makes it even more difficult for editors to find competent referees. A potential referee may be an expert regarding only a part of a particular study. It's only fair to comment on that part and indicate this to the editor so that a competent person is invited to comment on the other part(s).

So, rule No.1: accept an invitation to review a paper only if you're an expert in the field or at least a part of it and indicate this to the editor. Decline review if the subject of the paper is not your area of expertise.

Another thing I've noticed with people refereeing my papers is that this process sometimes takes ages. Though some journals have taken steps to ensure speedy review within 3-6 weeks, with some journals this may take even more than 6 months. This is simply unacceptable. Being in a referee's position myself, I've realised that even 3 weeks is more than enough to complete a review. Of course, I'm well aware of the fact that referees are very busy and have many, many other things to do. But so are the authors and referees should respect that. It's unfair to keep someone's paper 'under review' for more than a month.

So, rule No.2: accept an invitation to review a paper only if you can complete the review in less than 3 weeks.

Also, I've noticed that there are people who just don't care about the paper they're reviewing. They tend to write and overall impression of the paper without going into specific details. This is not helpful even if the paper is good and especially if it needs to be improved. It's almost like they just skimmed through the paper. On the other hand, there are people who write extensive reviews and I find these extremely helpful.

So, rule No.3: be fully committed to reviewing a paper. Go into minute details when writing a review.

Keywords: dental materials, research, publishing papers, review process.