GOOD PEER REVIEWS: THE ULTIMATE EDITORIAL CHALLENGE
Additional burdens on the reviewing community are created by the publishing strategy of LPUs (least publishable units) and shingling, used by authors under pressure to appear productive. With LPUs the question of whether the results being presented are significant contribution becomes very difficult. Editors seldom ask the reviewer to identify the single most important and/or significant contribution in a paper and whether it is particularly important.
Experienced reviewers are highly valued and as a consequence often overloaded. Inexperienced reviewers often criticize without giving specific suggestions for improvement. Problems with a paper might not be a matter of right or wrong science, but rather a convoluted organization, poor illustrations, and unclear scientific writing. Experience in reviewing helps in seeing the difference between content and presentation. Editors need to choose the most appropriate reviewers without overtaxing the experts and most importantly ask the right questions as having a detailed rationale is critical for supporting sound editorial decisions.