18

I peer-reviewed a manuscript and am about to send my conclusions to the editor. It occurs to me, though, that because there are many details to be checked/changed in various places of the paper (mathematical notations, in particular), it will take quite some time for me to type it into a proper review (probably using TeX, because it is math-heavy).

So, I am wondering: since my hand-writing is decent and people don't usually find it too hard to decipher, could I simply scan my annotated copy of the paper, along with one page of notes, to the editor? Or will that be unacceptable to them?

I think it raises a few questions, going from practicalities:

  • will it be as useful as a thoroughly written-down review?
  • does it give more work to the editor?
  • should I also include a summary of my comments, in computerized form?

to ethical questions:

  • does handwritten notes breach rules of anonymity?

I suppose people used to do that in older times, but it have never received a hand-written review so far, so it is (at least in my field) unusual.


So: should I do it? if I do it, what precautions should I take?

7

I do not think that there is anything wrong with a scanned handwritten report. As for anonymity: you may even sign your referee report as it is your decision to stay anonymous or not. As for usefulness: I once received an annotated scanned manuscript as a referee report at is was tremendously helpful (as there were several suggestions for formulations which greatly increased the readability). A computerized summary would also be helpful for the editor to form the decision and also for the authors to find out what you main points are (so that they can distinguish between just typo corrections and serious remarks).

6

A hand written scanned review is acceptable, if readable. But, the time spent on typing it into LaTeX (or any other suitable format) to produce a pdf is strongly advised. The reason is that even the most neat hand-writing, can include letters, symbols, writing details, that can be ambiguous to others (particular of other nationalities). So although, such reviews are acceptable, providing it in digital format reduces the risk of misreading and misinterpretation. In addition, a scanned hand-written review may be conceived as the result of someone not caring too much (however wrong that conclusion may be). So in the interest of clarity, I would suggest spending the time typing the review in.

2

If your copy of the paper is in pdf format, then you can attach typed notes to it fairly easily. A program called Skim does that, and I think modern pdf viewers also have that capability. (It would be good for me if more people used that option, so that authors who get a referee report of that sort can't easily infer that I'm the referee. My own handwriting has become so lousy that handwritten notes are no longer an option.)

2

If your handwriting is clear and you make a lot of small corrections, I would personally prefer to get your notes in the paper itself, scanned. The reason is that it's much easier to understand what's going on, and much easier to see where the mistakes have appeared. I would say that adding a separate report that contains long remarks (on structural things, mistakes in math proofs etc.) is a good idea and should be done, since long text is hard to squeeze into the page margins1.

Just a remark to finish: please, use a red pen and make a color scan.

I don't agree with people saying that doing a lot of corrections is necessarily wrong (well, it's another question). Many reviewers do a poor job, and many reviewers are too sensitive. But it's very likely that a good paper needs a lot of corrections.


1 Ask Fermat, he knows something about this.

1

I have received hand-marked manuscript review previously, and it did not raise an issue to neither the editor nor myself and my co-authors. However there is a point you should consider:

Is it really a substantial and reliable paper if it needs such an extensive correction even in mathematical parts? I have been rejected on the basis of too many typos or too poor grammar, which I don't think should necessarily be a deciding factor. I will only reject people based on bad grammar only if it significantly hurts the understanding of the paper's material.

Extensively erroneous mathematics sounds something like a substantial problem with the quality of the research and not only the quality of presentation.

0

One point that no-one has mentioned yet: after receiving your review, the authors will (probably) take your comments into account, make changes, and then write a letter explaining the changes which they submit along with the revised version.

In their letter explaining changes, it is common (at least in my field) to answer reviewer's comments point-by-point and to include verbatim the reviewer's questions, e.g.

  • Reviewer 1, Comment 2: "Jones et al. (2001) needed more froobiz to reach the wiznish point. Why do you find a different value?"
    • In this study we used an improved floopnosh technique which inherently requires less froobiz; see also the review by Smith (2004).

So, if the authors decide to go this route and you submit a hand-written review, they will have to TeX-ify your review document, possibly making errors in the process.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.
{"cc_re__cc_re__cc_by_sa_4_0": ["-item\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/stackoverflow\" class=\"-link js-gps-track\" data-gps-track=\"footer.click({ location: 2, link: 32 })\">Twitter</a></li>\r\n                    <li class=\"-item\"><a href=\"https://linkedin.com/company/stack-overflow\" class=\"-link js-gps-track\" data-gps-track=\"footer.click({ location: 2, link: 33 })\">LinkedIn</a></li>\r\n                </ul>\r\n\r\n                <p class=\"mt-auto mb24\">\r\nsite design / logo &#169; 2019 Stack Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under <a href=\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/\" class=\"js-gps-track\" data-gps-track=\"footer.click({ location: 2, link: 34 })\" rel=\"license\">cc by-sa 4.0</a>\r\n                            with <a href=\"https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/25/attribution-required/\"  class=\"js-gps-track\" data-gps-track=\"footer.click({ location: 2, link:35 })\" rel=\"license\">attribution required</a>.\r\n                    <span id=\"svnrev\">rev&nbsp;2019.9.18.34955</span>\r\n                </p>\r\n            </div>\r\n        </div>\r\n\r\n            </footer>\r\n            <script>StackExchange.ready(function () { StackExchange.responsiveness.addSwitcher(); })</scri"], "copyright__copyright__copyright": ["is study we used an improved floopnosh technique which inherently requires less froobiz; see also the review by Smith (2004).\n\nSo, if the authors decide to go this route and you submit a hand-written review, they will have to TeX-ify your review document, possibly making errors in the process.\n\nYour Answer\n\nBy clicking \u201cPost Your Answer\u201d, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy\n\nNot the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question."]}