It’s hard to find good reviewers for scientific papers. Because it’s all anonymized (though that may be slowly changing), there’s no easy way to tell who’s a good reviewer and who’s a bad reviewer. It’s easier to define what makes for a bad than a good reviewer: tardy in responding with their comments [not relevant […]

[this is an idea proposed by Adrian de Froment] Let’s say you are a great scientific reviewer. You respond in a timely fashion, provide detailed and insightful comments, and your judgments about which papers should be published tend to match the judgments of other reviewers and of journal editors. Being a good reviewer is like […]