Timeline for Pre-submission peer review services
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 27, 2019 at 20:34 | history | edited | None | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 26 characters in body
|
| Jan 27, 2019 at 17:55 | comment | added | StrongBad | @FedericoPoloni think about really bad manuscripts you have reviewed. I would guess that even someone halfway competent in a related field could likely improve them by a lot since in most fields introductions and discussion sections need to be comprehendable to more than just experts. | |
| Jan 27, 2019 at 17:50 | comment | added | Solar Mike | I met someone who told as they were bi-lingual they could deal with any translation... They failed with an article about stresses and fractures in a loaded shaft... | |
| Jan 27, 2019 at 17:26 | history | edited | None | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 732 characters in body
|
| Jan 27, 2019 at 17:21 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | Yeah, clearly those reviewers are not going to be experts in my field --- at least, no one I've met in a conference ever mentioned having a side job for edit-something-dot-com. The question is whether they can really provide feedback of comparable quality: an experienced researcher may be able to make useful comments on my paper even if they work only in a neighboring field. I'm skeptical, but it's very difficult to tell in advance without having tested them. | |
| Jan 27, 2019 at 17:19 | comment | added | None | This sounds suspicious. Respectful experts in the fields do not go for these services. The channels to get peer-reviews in academia are known since ages. I listed examples like conferences, journals, symposiums. | |
| Jan 27, 2019 at 17:18 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | If you read the linked pages, these services really claim that they do technical reviewing "like a true peer review". | |
| Jan 27, 2019 at 17:17 | history | answered | None | CC BY-SA 4.0 |