I am a postdoctoral researcher. Over the past few years, I have taken the inevitable step of peer-reviewing papers for a number of journals in my field of research. I read the article ¡°Peer reviewing: a good deed and a good career move, too¡± (News, 12 March) and had to respond to some of the points that were perhaps not discussed.

Peer-reviewing has been a learning curve. I have considered it to be a rite of passage, a task that all on the academic path undertake to give something back.

However, my latest frustration with the peer-review process comes from authoring a paper. At first glance, the feedback that I received was constructive and no major changes were required. But after digging deeper I realised that one reviewer had clearly overstepped the mark and had made comments that were less than useful.

In short, the reviewer made a few short and vague points relating to the introduction that lacked ¡°physical argumentation¡±. The suggestion to cite two totally irrelevant papers was my breaking point because they were as relevant to the paper as astrology is to astronomy.

ÖйúAƬ

And then I realised that peer-reviewing is an opportunity, not just a way of ensuring good research. In 2015, peer-reviewers are undertaking this work as a method of self-love, otherwise known as self-citation. The frustrating thing is that it is working, and no ¡°index¡± can capture how useful this practice is for increasing your citation statistics. I¡¯ll admit that on one occasion I have done the same, but the work was relevant to the paper in review.

To all authors out there: don¡¯t roll over and allow peer-reviewers to piggyback their papers on to your work. I¡¯d rather a career of low citations and high regard on other merits.

ÖйúAƬ

John Gallagher
Hydro-BPT research officer, Bangor University