审稿人审稿的十项注意

     与博友们分享一下不久前我收到的一份有点特别的审稿意见：这位评审人在审稿意见中首先详细地阐述了结合自己的学术经历所总结的审稿注意事项，并表示“在每一份评审意见中都会将这些内容作为先导，既作为对作者的承诺，也作为对自己的提醒”。
1. 基于稿件本身而不是自己的期望来做判断。
2. 对研究方法的评判要以作者的假设和合理性作为依据。
3. 不要求或暗示作者引用自己的工作。
4. 不强求作者采用深奥的统计检验。
5. 不强求作者使用某个特定的研究方法。
6. 不能因为自己的身份作者保密就态度粗鲁。
7. 如果认为稿件不能被录用就不建议作者再重新投稿。
8. 不混淆审稿人与文字加工编辑和校对人员的作用。
9. 不混淆审稿人和审查员的作用。
10. 尽量尊重作者的工作。
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having  experienced my share of bad reviewers, I now include this preamble with every review, both as an assurance to the authors and a reminder to myself. Please note that this is not specific to this paper.

1. I will judge the paper based on what it is, not what I want it to be, or what I would have done.
2. The methods will be judged only based on the hypotheses and rationale. Maybe other methods exist and maybe I would have done it differently, but all that matters is whether the methods are adequate to test the hypotheses.
3. I will not tell you to cite my work, or suggest or ask, or hint.
That is asking for a bribe, or worse, it is extortion. It is completely  unprofessional and an abuse of authority for personal gain. If the paper tests one of my hypotheses or it is a DIRECT derivative of my work and does not cite me, the paper will be deemed to be poorly researched.
However, in most cases authors choose from among many available supporting references, and whether I get cited or not is just the luck of the draw.
4. I will not insist on the use of esoteric statistical tests just because I just learned them or because the latest version of my favourite software now includes them as defaults. But if you use them, I  will ask you to explain them. If your statistics are suitable for your data and hypothesis, then all is fine.
5. In will not insist on the use of specific methods  just because I just bought the equipment and/or my lab or my friend’s lab is the only one that can do those tests (for you). If your methods are suitable to test your hypothesis, then all is fine.
6. I will not be rude simply because my identity is supposedly unknown to you.
The fact that I reviewed this paper means that I probably was NOT one of your suggested/requested reviewers. I usually ask, and if I was requested/suggested, I usually decline. Requesting specific reviewers it is just a way of to seek out biased reviewers.
7. If I would never suggest a paper gets accepted (i.e., if there is something deeply wrong with it), I will not waste your time by suggesting a resubmission. I will not assume you will go back in time and do a different study or change your methods. I am sure that you have better uses for your time machine. Nor will I assume that you have free time to do confirmatory additional experiments. This is the paper. There are 3 options: it is good enough, it can become good enough, or not.
8. I will not confuse the role of a reviewer with that of a copy-editor or proof-reader. BUT in my assessment, I will consider the writing quality and style. I will
not assume you are not a native English speaker just because your prose is not good, nor will I assume the opposite. Bad writing transcends such arbitrary boundaries. I have refused to review papers that are poorly written. It is the editor’s job to ensure the papers are readable before sending them out for review.
9. I will not confuse the role of a reviewer with that of a censor.
10. Mostly, I will do my best to respect the fact that it is YOUR work, and you are responsible for the quality and content. My role is tell the editors whether it is scientifically sound, and whether it is sound or not, to help the authors make it better. My comments to the authors are only meant to be suggestions for improvement, NOT conditions for publication. 
Having said all that, I have the following comments about this paper: ......