Reviewing papers

Recently I had the pleasure of reviewing a paper. You might think I am being sarcastic, but I actually found the process very interesting.

For one, it is actually a bit terrifying to think that you are responsible for he quality of this particular bit of scientific progress. The Impostor syndrome is as valid here as in any place, and I couldn't help but feel like a fraud when I received the review request. (I'm not saying that the only reason I don't feel worthy of reviewing a paper is because of the Impostor syndrome - it's also very likely that I am partially incompetent).

However, once those initial doubts receded, it was quite engrossing to review the paper. I found myself really trying to understand what the author was saying in every sentence, and it was almost as if i had written the paper myself.

Eventually, the doubts made their reentry, because I couldn't find that many faults with the paper. There were no big guffaws that I could pounce on (at least that I noticed). This leads to one of two conclusions: Either the author did a good job and had covered all eventualities, or I suck as a scientist.

Which of the two conclusions is the right one is not something I can with only one data point. My brain did its best to rationalize, though - the author is quite famous in my field so he probably has a lot of experience. Also, I did manage to find some points that could be clearer or that should have had less hand-waving and more calculations.

All in all, the reviewing experience was a positive one, even if it stole precious hours out of my work week. I honestly wish I could spend more time reading papers as thoroughly as I did this one, but alas..