PEER VIEWS: STORIES FROM THE PEOPLE AT THE HEART OF PEER REVIEW

Reviewer: Veronika Cheplygina

but I was satisfied with what I definitely recommend to start increasing their h-index, but learnt from it. I recently wrote keeping track of the reviews that reviewing papers wasn’t a blog post about the whole that you do, such as keeping a priority – understandable experience here. the review itself, the review if your h-index is taken into receipt (especially if you don’t get account for decisions such What is the biggest an email – take a screenshot!), as a job or a tenured position. misconception about peer and whether the paper is When defending my thesis, review? published eventually or not. I suggested an alternative in one of my propositions [In That the peer reviewed outcome Do you sign and publish the Netherlands, you defend of a paper is the ground truth. your reviews where journals your thesis along with a set Plenty of poor quality papers Name Veronika Cheplygina permit? why / why not of 10 propositions, which are get through peer review, while publons.com/a/1180723/ opposable and defendable excellent papers get rejected. Unfortunately I haven’t done statements about your field, Current position There are many reasons for this. I believe it’s not very research and life in general]. Postdoc at Biomedical Imaging this, but having only a few common for the venues where Group Rotterdam, Erasmus reviewers is an important one. I publish, and most journals and The proposition read, Medical Center, As a consequence, it is conferences explicitly ask that “Introducing an index for The Netherlands. important not to give up after you do not add your personal reviewers as a counterpart of the rejection, and not to blindly details to the review. Because h-index for authors would lead to Area of expertise believe everything that is of the stage of my career, I feel more, better and timelier reviews.” I teach machine learning published. Ideally, on the like I should be following the You can imagine my excitement algorithms to recognize publisher’s webpage for each rules, even if I think reviews when I discovered that such an diseases in medical scans. paper, I would want to see should be signed. initiative already existed! comments, including what the No. of reviews Since discovering Publons I hope that institutions and citing papers are saying about 40 (since 2013) I did publish the content of a funding agencies will reward the paper. few reviews I wrote, for papers researchers for putting effort that have now been published. into increasing their “reviewer Describe your first What advice would you give To be honest I’m a bit nervous index” as well – it is great that experience with peer review to early career researchers about it, so I will wait a bit to there are already examples of about being a peer see if I get any comments from this happening, such as the I was in the third year of my reviewer? the editors / authors involved case study of Dr. Matthias Lien PhD and was getting worried before opening up more reviews. on Publons. that other PhD students were I would recommend looking at already reviewing papers and examples of reviews in your Final thoughts I wasn’t. Finally receiving an field – reviews that you or your colleagues received, but also invitation was exciting and a As a PhD student I noticed Thanks Veronika for joining in open reviews that can be found little bit scary. I spent quite a that researchers were on the conversation about on Publons. And I would lot of time of on the review, putting a lot of effort into Peer Review.

#PeerViews @Publons publons.com