Referee Report: Fill & Download for Free

A very simple thing that can be done to improve peer review is to publish the referee reports alongside the paper, including the entire correspondence between authors/editor/referees if the paper was resubmitted with revisions prompted by referee comments. A few benefits of publishing referee reports:An increase in professionalism of referee reports. Many of the reports I have seen (not just on my papers) have a very confrontational tone and present only shallow criticisms. Moreover, many referees ask the authors to cite papers which are obviously theirs (so much for anonymity). Most papers have more than one referee, so a paper might still get published even if one referee gives a negative report. The possibility of having an unprofessional document online which might hypothetically be traced back to them (research communities are small) would motivate referees to be thoughtful and factual even when they recommend that a paper not be published. And as referees try to 'anonymize' their referee report, they will likely present a broader assessment of the literature in the field, beyond their individual viewpoints.Incorrect papers are often published, and usually at least one of the referees appreciates and points out the errors, even if they are outvoted by the other referees and the editor. Seeing a thoughtful argument about why a published paper is wrong would be very helpful for non-expert readers and naive young people who still believe that all papers published in high-impact journals are correct.Historical record. The dissent that happens while a field is hot is often forgotten once the scientific record gets settled. The full debate does not always manifest in the literature, and even if it does, people never read the papers that were wrong decades after the fact. Having the referee reports published with the paper would put the paper in the proper context.Nowadays, many journals allow online-only supplementary materials to accompany papers they publish. Including another tab for the referee reports would require no new infrastructure and no changes to the actual peer review process.disclaimer: I didn't invent this idea, I just support it.Edit: I noticed that some journals, such as nature communications, are starting to do this.

It is the job of a PhD advisor to educate their students in every aspect of academic research. This includes mastering the domain knowledge in the field, learning how to create new knowledge, learning how to write a paper, and learning about peer review (both giving, receiving, and responding to). I believe PhD advisers have an obligation to give their students practice writing referee reports; there is no better way to become familiar with the format and proper tone of a referee report than to be responsible for it yourself.That being said, it is important for the advisor to provide guidance and collaboration, especially if it is the student’s first referee report or if it is not completely in the student’s area of expertise. Moreover, they should give proper credit (to the editor; referee reports are anonymous) if the student contributes to the referee report or writes the whole thing themselves. Most journals ask referees whether they received outside consultation for their referee report, because asking a colleague or a student for their opinion is very common.Thus, I fully support your advisor including you in the peer review process, but not without giving you guidance or credit.

The editor of an academic journalDecides if a submitted paper meets a quality thresshold to go out for peer reviewSeeks out peer reviewers (referees) of relevant expertiseReminds the referees that their reports were due 3 weeks agoFacilitates communication between authors and referees, in the case that the paper is resubmitted with revisionsMakes an executive decision, nominally based on the referee reports, about whether to accept the paper or notThe last point is where the editor has a lot of leeway. They might ignore a negative and/or dogmatic referee report if the other two are good, or they might not. They might even accept a paper with only one glowing referee report out of three. The referee reports are guidance, but they typically do not provide an unequivocal course of action. Thus the editor must make an executive decision about whether to accept a paper, and it is expected that they do so by taking the referee reports into careful consideration.That being said, journal editors do sometimes behave unprofessionally (a topic for another quora question). If you think the editor is acting on a conflict of interest or otherwise doing something unethical or unprofessional, you should ask your advisor to escalate this concern up the chain of command. Typically, this involves contacting the executive editor, if such a position exists at the journal. Be advised, however, that your advisor might not choose to act on this because from their point of view, paper rejection (unfair or not) is not uncommon and there are always other journals.