The more responsible boss will read it carefully after the students review it, and the less reliable boss may give feedback directly to the editor. Sometimes, when an editor gives a paper to an external reviewer, he will give an indicator of recommended acceptance, and it is quite laborious for students to rely on this indicator as much as possible when reviewing the paper.
However, it is not without benefits. The process of reviewing papers will be more careful and efficient than reading papers by yourself, because it will force you to output and give reasonable review opinions. In addition, the process of reviewing manuscripts can also improve the writing level of papers. Read more negative examples and you will know how important a reasonable paper structure is to improve the readability of the paper.
In fact, I have come across some very interesting papers, the ideas are novel, but the integrity of the text is not good enough, and it is a pity that they were finally rejected.
Basic operation, periodical papers, master's degree papers and doctoral degree papers have all been reviewed, and almost five doctoral degree papers have been reviewed. I really think the peer review of students is irresponsible, especially the peer review opinions I wrote, except that he read them when I first reviewed them, and then I never took care of them again.
Free play. Journals and master's dissertations are ok, but doctoral dissertations are really difficult to test, 100 pages. After reading it from beginning to end, an hour passed, and after reading it, I was still puzzled. It's the first time to read a doctoral thesis, but you still feel confused after reading it for a day. You still don't know his research field at all.
How to judge? However, more experiments. Now a short paper can be reviewed in half an hour and a doctoral thesis can be reviewed in half a day. Basically, you can only ask some logical questions, because the specific methods and formulas are blind areas of knowledge. I feel that the atmosphere of students reviewing manuscripts is very bad, after all, it is also a small paper.
Sometimes when I receive peer review opinions, I really see that it is a student review at first sight, which is very unprofessional. Some are really low. The key is to give me some misspelled opinions, and the key is not to return any substantive opinions to me. If you are not responsible for reviewing manuscripts and reading them carefully, give low marks to others' dissertations.
It does have a great impact. It's ironic to see the honorary certificate of this year's outstanding reviewers that my tutor just got.
Review:
Comments are a function of editors. The editor's work of judging, identifying and evaluating the materials (manuscripts) such as words and images created by the author (for the review of translated manuscripts, it is mainly to identify the quality of translation) consists of two parts: reviewing manuscripts and writing review reports. Also known as censorship. Peer review is the key to editing work and an important step to determine the quality of books.