A thread about reviewing.

These are my opinions as an author, reviewer, editor & human being.

It should go without saying...
Being rejected from a journal is fine.
Reviews contrary to your viewpoint are fine.
Blunt, hard-hitting reviews are fine; not pleasant but fine.

Unprofessional, lazy, and unscientific reviews are not fine.
Personal attacks or barbed comments are not fine, whether they are obvious or subtle.

If you have a conflict of interest or an axe to grind then reject the invitation to review.

Journals - one reviewer is not sufficient.

If you don't "like" one of the authors, ask yourself why.

NOT valid reasons for disliking someone: you have opposing scientific views, they challenge your views, they publish contrary findings to yours, you are jealous of them. Competition is healthy.

If you have known them on a personal level for years and have walked a mile in their shoes, then you can confidently say "you don't like them", which is fine, but don't accept the invitation to review their paper unless you are 100% sure you can put your bias aside.

Don't try to guess the identity of your reviewers, this will rob you of your peace of mind and make you paranoid. ALSO, its easy to get it wrong, meaning that you now "dislike" the wrong person.

Sidebar anecdote: recently I reviewed a paper. When I read the other two reviewers comments, one of them read like it had been written by me, and I'm sure the authors thought the same and silently cursed me, but on this occasion I wasn't reviewer 2!

I don't believe in opposing reviewers. Let the work speak for itself. I believe in the review & editorial system.

Over the last few wks I have not felt this way. I have doubted the system & those in it. But today I have decided that the "bad" reviewer wont win, integrity will.