Peer review

Written evidence submitted by
Professor Yasser Gaber Dessouky (PR 04)

1. the strengths and weaknesses of peer review as a quality control mechanism for scientists, publishers and the public;

I think peer reviewing is very essential to make sure the quality of papers are quite good. The weakness is that the reviewing is done by a reviewer in 6 weeks and I presume other processes are done in say another 4 weeks and it could happen that the paper is published in three or four months, so if there is a way to make that short, as for my role as a peer reviewer, I think 4 weeks for peer reviewing the paper would be suitable to help you make the process faster.

2. measures to strengthen peer review;

I think the current measures are suitable.

3. the value and use of peer reviewed science on advancing and testing scientific knowledge;

I think the current value and use are quite suitable.

4. the value and use of peer reviewed science in informing public debate;

I think the current value and use are quite suitable.

5. the extent to which peer review varies between scientific disciplines and between countries across the world;

I am sorry, I do not have an idea about that, because I did some peer reviewing and I was not a member of the IET and I was not having the journals, but I applied for membership in the IET and I will be a member starting from Jan 2011. But however I see the IET subsection in my country, EGYPT, is not as active as the IEEE subsection, that’s why I contacted the representatives of the IET here and I will help them promote their role at least in my city and hopefully in other cities.

6. the processes by which reviewers with the requisite skills and knowledge are identified,  in particular as the volume of multi-disciplinary research increases;

I think there is a weakness of this point, because in the process you accept any one by recommendation of an already approved reviewer, and that happened with me, no one asked me for my C.V. before you sent me papers to look at. So I suggest before you approve a reviewer you should have his C.V. and preferred to be an IET member.

7. the impact of IT and greater use of online resources on the peer review process;

Now there are several soft ware which checks the plagiarism, and I already do some reviewing in places which apply this technology, and they give me e report about the result along with the paper, so why IET does not adopt this as well.

8. Possible alternatives to peer review.

I do not think of any other way for now.

Professor Yasser Gaber Dessouky

15 February 2011