Qualities of a good reviewer

Handle URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10754/626102
Title:
Qualities of a good reviewer
Authors:
Bui, Huyen; Dunlap, Dallas; Hearon, Thomas; Herron, Donald; Lan, Chaoli; Jiang, Shu; Marfurt, Kurt; Nemeth, Balazs; Ogiesoba, Osareni; Schuster, Gerard T. ( 0000-0001-7532-1587 ) ; Zeng, Hongliu
Abstract:
Interpretation shares commonalities with Geophysics and the AAPG Bulletin in that it is a peer-reviewed journal. Unlike Geophysics and the AAPG Bulletin, Interpretation is built around special sections headed by a team of special-section editors who are either experts or particularly interested in the focused area. In addition to constructing a Call for Papers announcing their special section, the special-section editors also will solicit papers from colleagues, competitors, technology suppliers, and others that they believe may have contributions of interest to the Interpretation readership community. Submitted papers then are assigned by the special editors to three or more reviewers, many of whom are contributors to (and hence expert in) the same special-section topic. By design, the special section-structure of Interpretation reaches authors, editors, and reviewers who previously may not have been involved in the peer-review process. Recognizing this fact, in this article the standing editorial board attempts to summarize some of the more important qualities of what we find to be a good reviewer.
KAUST Department:
KAUST, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia..
Citation:
Bui H, Dunlap D, Hearon T, Herron D, Lan C, et al. (2017) Qualities of a good reviewer. Interpretation 5: 1A–3A. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/int-2017-0717-fe.1.
Publisher:
Society of Exploration Geophysicists
Journal:
Interpretation
Issue Date:
22-Jul-2017
DOI:
10.1190/int-2017-0717-fe.1
Type:
Article
ISSN:
2324-8858; 2324-8866
Additional Links:
http://library.seg.org/doi/10.1190/INT-2017-0717-FE.1
Appears in Collections:
Articles

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorBui, Huyenen
dc.contributor.authorDunlap, Dallasen
dc.contributor.authorHearon, Thomasen
dc.contributor.authorHerron, Donalden
dc.contributor.authorLan, Chaolien
dc.contributor.authorJiang, Shuen
dc.contributor.authorMarfurt, Kurten
dc.contributor.authorNemeth, Balazsen
dc.contributor.authorOgiesoba, Osarenien
dc.contributor.authorSchuster, Gerard T.en
dc.contributor.authorZeng, Hongliuen
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-02T09:09:33Z-
dc.date.available2017-11-02T09:09:33Z-
dc.date.issued2017-07-22en
dc.identifier.citationBui H, Dunlap D, Hearon T, Herron D, Lan C, et al. (2017) Qualities of a good reviewer. Interpretation 5: 1A–3A. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/int-2017-0717-fe.1.en
dc.identifier.issn2324-8858en
dc.identifier.issn2324-8866en
dc.identifier.doi10.1190/int-2017-0717-fe.1en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10754/626102-
dc.description.abstractInterpretation shares commonalities with Geophysics and the AAPG Bulletin in that it is a peer-reviewed journal. Unlike Geophysics and the AAPG Bulletin, Interpretation is built around special sections headed by a team of special-section editors who are either experts or particularly interested in the focused area. In addition to constructing a Call for Papers announcing their special section, the special-section editors also will solicit papers from colleagues, competitors, technology suppliers, and others that they believe may have contributions of interest to the Interpretation readership community. Submitted papers then are assigned by the special editors to three or more reviewers, many of whom are contributors to (and hence expert in) the same special-section topic. By design, the special section-structure of Interpretation reaches authors, editors, and reviewers who previously may not have been involved in the peer-review process. Recognizing this fact, in this article the standing editorial board attempts to summarize some of the more important qualities of what we find to be a good reviewer.en
dc.publisherSociety of Exploration Geophysicistsen
dc.relation.urlhttp://library.seg.org/doi/10.1190/INT-2017-0717-FE.1en
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Interpretationen
dc.titleQualities of a good revieweren
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentKAUST, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia..en
dc.identifier.journalInterpretationen
dc.eprint.versionPublisher's Version/PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionShell International E&P, Houston, Texas, USA..en
dc.contributor.institutionBureau of Economic Geology, Austin, Texas, USA..en
dc.contributor.institutionConocoPhillips, Houston, Texas, USA..en
dc.contributor.institutionConsultant, Sugar Land, Texas, USA..en
dc.contributor.institutionChina University of Petroleum–Beijing, College of Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China..en
dc.contributor.institutionEGI, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA..en
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA..en
dc.contributor.institutionBHP Billiton Canada Inc., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada..en
kaust.authorSchuster, Gerard T.en
All Items in KAUST are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.