Are we Going to Face a Quandary in Finding Efficient Reviewers for Scientific Publications?

Publication of a paper in a scientific journal involves several entities, the prime components being the author/s, reviewer/ s, editor and publisher. The quality of the publication as well as the journal (often controversially judged by the journal impact factor), acting often in a bidirectional mode, largely depend on the quality of the reviewer/s. An author always tries to put the best in the manuscript (limited by his/her capability). However, he/she might have limitations of availability of instruments or of outlook, and may overlook some important point/s while performing the experiments, or analysing the data and/or putting them properly in the manuscript. It is the referee who principally evaluates whether the work reported in the manuscripts fits for the journal to which it has been submitted. The job of the referee is not merely to select ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. As an expert, it is his/her responsibility to criticize the work positively and make suggestions (even advising newer experiments, where applicable) to improve the work if possible. This evaluation is the stem of the whole process of publication that raises the quality of the paper as well as the journal, in a cumulative manner.