1. How to respond/reply to a reviewer who doesn't seem to "get" the paper

  2. Editor rejected manuscript claiming it is similar to a not-yet-published manuscript (that I haven't seen). How to proceed?

  3. How do journal editors check word count on pdfs?
  4. How to tell whether email seeking paid peer-reviewers for grant scheme is legitimate? How to respond?

  5. Math / physics conference with one week review period - reasonable?
  6. What to do if the editor's decision is not in your favor?

  7. How detailed should one be in writing the referee's report?

  8. What is Awaiting Reviewer Reply? Scholarone journal
  9. Editorial rejection: should I write back?
  10. Journal paper submission practices to improve review quality and reduce delay
  11. Is a Master Student ready to be a Review Editor?
  12. Why aren't faculty applications peer-reviewed?

  13. What quantitive metrics would reviewers in order to be presented as candidates for peer review?

  14. Withdraw manuscript from peer review after finding a major error

  15. Is it okay to share with a colleague my peer-review assessment of a paper; but not the original paper?

  16. Publications that use public review
  17. How to handle a possibly biased editor?
  18. Becoming a referee if authoring mostly in large collaborations
  19. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics
  20. Tools for writing referee reports

  21. How to review a paper for originality?

  22. How to review bogus science without hurting feelings?
  23. reviews completed

  24. Contacting EiC on social media

  25. Time delay in papers peer-review process

  26. What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?

  27. Talking about works under submission without breaching anonymity

  28. Is there any evidence that double blind peer review systems are beneficial?
  29. Invalidating a method because its "Dated"

  30. Reject a paper based on relevant but pointless research direction

  31. Why do some journals have anonymous editors?
  32. What happens if the second reviewer for a conference proceeding keeps missing their deadline?
  33. What to do if reviewers reject a paper without understanding the content?

  34. Do reviewers usually ask for data? (Computer Science/ Data Science / Data Mining)
  35. My paper was rejected following a lengthy delay during which an editor published a similar paper
  36. How long typically are paper reviews? Is there such a thing as “too long”?
  37. Is it okay to disclose papers under review for feedback on the review?
  38. What benefits are there to peer reviewing papers?

  39. Should I add a non-requested work to my major revision of a scientific journal paper?
  40. How much bandwidth should I allocate for reviewing as a PhD student?
  41. Why do potential reviewers take a lot of time to reject the request for review?
  42. Peer Review Paper - Incoherent English

  43. "Under Editor Evaluation" to "Under Review"

  44. Can I cite a comment by a reviewer of a conference paper?

  45. How to contact EiC when his emails seems like auto computer generated reply
  46. Can my advisor's advisor be a reviewer for a paper written by me along with my advisor

  47. Unethical procedure in methods
  48. application to be a reviewer
  49. Is the the peer-review process different for special issues?
  50. Is it plagiarism to copy-paste part of a figure from a cited work?

  51. How much modification in a manuscript is recommended after a major revision?
  52. An author of a paper included a blank supplementary file. Is it possible to make the journal correct this?

  53. Sending multiple revisions to editor/referee

  54. List of accepted papers: Why do notifications take 10 more days?

  55. Reviewing: potential conflict from knowledge of other researcher's activities

  56. I got a provisional acceptance and submitted my clerical revisions almost two months ago. Email the editor?
  57. Double blinded review but the appendix contains author's name

  58. Is it appropriate to summarise and paraphrase complex reviewer comments before providing my answer?
  59. Do certificates for "Outstanding Reviewer Contribution" matter?

  60. Who can help me . I am interested to be a reviwer

  61. How shall we reply to an editor after a minor revision of a paper?

  62. AMM reviewing process

  63. Will journal editors contact you if your book review has been rejected?
  64. Why do universities/research agencies allow their employees to do free peer reviewing which financially benefits a third party?

  65. What needs to be done if an editor requires "very thorough editing"?

  66. If I saw a research result similar to mine from my PC/editing duties, should and how should I contact the authors?
  67. How to effectively address conflicting suggestions from reviewers

  68. Has there ever been a strike of peer reviewers?

  69. Are paper revision services worthwhile?

  70. "Awaiting Editors Decision" what could it mean?
  71. Potential referee for a journal submission

  72. the status changed to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment".....What does that means?
  73. Counting journal reviews (when reviewing revisions)

  74. How to review a paper that relies heavily on references to unpublished work?

  75. Unrealistic demands for minor revisions
  76. Tips for revising manuscripts months later

  77. Soliciting pre-submission manuscript comments from people who could later be peer reviewers

  78. Is it inappropriate for an author to copy and paste from his/her original paper in an extension paper?
  79. Would peer-reviewed articles of single author give insights into the author's collaborative skills?

  80. My previous supervisor keeps asking me to review her papers. How to deal with this?

  81. Can I have ResearchGate organize peer review of my paper?
  82. Has anyone here tried this alternative peer review platform 'Peerage of Science'?
  83. How to deal with corresponding authors not sharing submission steps? (E.g. Peer reviews & Decisions)

  84. Should I reject a request if I've already reviewed many papers from the same author recently?
  85. Co-authors ignore comments and submit revision anyway

  86. Is there a website for rating and reviewing journals openly?
  87. Should I ask a journal for provided peer review when a corresponding author will not share communications?
  88. How detailed should my review of a very poorly-written manuscript be?
  89. Can I publish the reviews I write?

  90. Can co-authors check the status of a submitted manuscript with various publishers?

  91. Literature searches in publications when you have limited access to journals
  92. Why don't researchers request payment for refereeing?
  93. Are there any journals that pay reviewers?

  94. Should an undergraduate answer a call for reviewers?
  95. Reviewers had differing opinion on my manuscript
  96. How should I handle reviewer comments when grammar makes the meaning unclear?
  97. Is it ok as a junior PhD student to review ranked conference papers?

  98. Referee recommends paper rejection with no further comment - how to react?
  99. Consequences of unwittingly reinventing an idea

  100. Handling reviewer comment challenging the novelty of a used method