I just did my first review for PeerJ and it was a real pleasure because there are a lot of "little things" that make your reviewing life easier:
1. Figures/tables are in the text and, get this, the captions are immediately above/below the corresponding figure/table. Some other journals also do this, but not enough.
2. I annotate the mss in a pdf reader and usually this is a frustrating experience since the publisher generated pdf has all sorts of "quirks" that make highlighting and copying text hit and miss. The previous pdf I reviewed turned every page with a figure into an image! Annotating/copying in the PeerJ pdf worked flawlessly.
3. The pdf contained a 3 front pages with the due date, a summary of the review criteria, a link to the page with the supplementary material, and a link to the page where I should submit my review. No hunting around for the email with the link! I teared up a little bit when I saw that.
Other "little things" include stuff like not having to rank the perceived importance or impact of the work on some bogus 1-10 scale, a strict policy on making the raw data available, and a button to click to make my review non-anonymous.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
1. Figures/tables are in the text and, get this, the captions are immediately above/below the corresponding figure/table. Some other journals also do this, but not enough.
2. I annotate the mss in a pdf reader and usually this is a frustrating experience since the publisher generated pdf has all sorts of "quirks" that make highlighting and copying text hit and miss. The previous pdf I reviewed turned every page with a figure into an image! Annotating/copying in the PeerJ pdf worked flawlessly.
3. The pdf contained a 3 front pages with the due date, a summary of the review criteria, a link to the page with the supplementary material, and a link to the page where I should submit my review. No hunting around for the email with the link! I teared up a little bit when I saw that.
Other "little things" include stuff like not having to rank the perceived importance or impact of the work on some bogus 1-10 scale, a strict policy on making the raw data available, and a button to click to make my review non-anonymous.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
No comments:
Post a Comment