Honest, unbiased, free-of-cost peer-reviewing!

Peer-reviewing is a tough, responsible task. The reviewer has to understand the study, check for it's soundness and contribution to the field, and provide specific comments to authors for improving their manuscript, or suggest rejection for scientific reasons. This task requires an in-depth understanding in the field, an Eagle's vision and the ability to critically assess the work. Editors summon an expert in the field to serve as a peer-reviewer. But, the burden of keen observation lies on the peer-reviewer, which allows Journals to uphold the highest standards of scientific academic publishing.

However, a fact that is often neglected (looked-down-at/heckled) is that a researcher can serve as a peer-reviewer only when they have the mental composure to comprehend someone else's study in the field (that they too work in) and provide constructive criticism, without being personal or sentimental! Researcher needs to appreciate the fact that others are also working in a manner similar to or better than theirs. This takes a lot of mental strength and humility! Researcher should not feel insecure because someone else published an article in the same field! Hence, not many researchers can consistently serve as peer-reviewers, despite having published/expertise in a particular field of research.

Such short-sighted researchers/experts often give excuses, such as reviewing is a free-of-cost (FoC) work; I don't get that much time; it is a boring, painstaking, waste-of-time task; why should I give my inputs to someone else's work and improve their study/paper; I'm too senior for such tasks; etc.! The opposite, darker approach is to purposely reject/delay reviewing/unnecessarily ask for more experiments/explanations to buy time for publishing one's study before that of the study under review! The academic publishing method relies on mentally sound, honest, unbiased peer-reviewers. Hence, these excuses are unsupportive and unethical.

In summary, if a researcher wants to publish an article and expect some expert person to review their paper, then it becomes the researcher's academic obligation to reciprocate the FoC service, and uphold academic publishing standards by serving as an honest peer-reviewer. It is a kind, responsible gesture to help science nurture. A baton passed from generations to generations!

- Dr. Mukul Godbole