3 ms·

When working in research my boss who was very accepted in the field was on many review committees, but I did lots of reviewing (for my failed PhD, "pre-scanning

When working in research my boss who was very accepted in the field was on many review committees, but I did lots of reviewing (for my failed PhD, "pre-scanning" etc.) - is this the case everywhere? The reviewers by name are not the people doing the actual reviews?

etrautmann 2y ago
In neuroscience it was common for PIs to review with the help of one or two trainees. Typically not an outsourcing in my experience but I had good mentors and not everyone operated that way.
asdff 2y ago
Its pretty common for the top tier research PIs to rest on their laurels a bit and let their sub PIs or post docs (even grad students) handle the work of writing up the grant proposals and even doing things like peer review on their behalf. These PIs basically exist to support the machine running under their name as they can secure way more grant money than if the lab were broken up.
- robotresearcher 2y ago
  > Doing things […] on their behalf We train grad students to do reviews by having them do reviews under close supervision, yes. You say it like it’s a bad thing.
  - a_bonobo 2y ago
    Well when I did the reviewing for my PI I rarely got close supervision :) It was more like, 'here's my review', followed by 'I sent it on thanks'
  - asdff 2y ago
    Well it would be one thing if the editor of the journal asked for the grad student to be the reviewer but they asked the PI. Seems a little disingenuous for the PI to pass off that effort as their own. Plus it no doubt takes time away from the grad students other responsibilities.
    - derbOac 2y ago
      Most journals that I know require the actual reviewer to be named. Usually it's phrased as "someone who assisted in writing the review." Someone could lie I guess but I'm not sure what they'd get out of that and at that point it would be outright fraud.
      - asdff 2y ago
        Its not named for the public, but the editor specifically looks for certain reviewers who are qualified to comment on the work at hand. They don't just grab random people they look for specific people. And if they are getting a bait and switch out of it instead, well, that's not really honest to the editors efforts trying to get a quality peer review for their journal.

etrautmann 2y ago

In neuroscience it was common for PIs to review with the help of one or two trainees. Typically not an outsourcing in my experience but I had good mentors and not everyone operated that way.

asdff 2y ago

Its pretty common for the top tier research PIs to rest on their laurels a bit and let their sub PIs or post docs (even grad students) handle the work of writing up the grant proposals and even doing things like peer review on their behalf. These PIs basically exist to support the machine running under their name as they can secure way more grant money than if the lab were broken up.

robotresearcher 2y ago
> Doing things […] on their behalf We train grad students to do reviews by having them do reviews under close supervision, yes. You say it like it’s a bad thing.
- a_bonobo 2y ago
  Well when I did the reviewing for my PI I rarely got close supervision :) It was more like, 'here's my review', followed by 'I sent it on thanks'
- asdff 2y ago
  Well it would be one thing if the editor of the journal asked for the grad student to be the reviewer but they asked the PI. Seems a little disingenuous for the PI to pass off that effort as their own. Plus it no doubt takes time away from the grad students other responsibilities.
  - derbOac 2y ago
    Most journals that I know require the actual reviewer to be named. Usually it's phrased as "someone who assisted in writing the review." Someone could lie I guess but I'm not sure what they'd get out of that and at that point it would be outright fraud.
    - asdff 2y ago
      Its not named for the public, but the editor specifically looks for certain reviewers who are qualified to comment on the work at hand. They don't just grab random people they look for specific people. And if they are getting a bait and switch out of it instead, well, that's not really honest to the editors efforts trying to get a quality peer review for their journal.