Putting on my (beta) reviewer coat again :)
Whew, another three papers to review! I guess I'm now among the most popular (beta) reviewer in my lab now. Likely this will do me some good, even though reviewing is so time-consuming. After all, I don't think there is such a saying as "three times a beta reviewer, never an author"!
Actually, in some ways, reviewing and beta-reviewing are not all that different from simply reading papers. In all three cases I prefer to pay attention to the particularly insensible parts and similarity to earlier work, which would help me write a sound rejection when reviewing (IMHO giving an acceptance is generally much less satisfying to the reviewer than a good rejection, unless the paper is really, REALLY helpful), point out potential grounds for rejection when beta-reviewing, and to put the idea in the paper into the Big Picture when just reading papers. This requires quite a lot of time on reading earlier papers related to the topic, but I find it quite helpful. I am not a believer of TIMTOWDI and a ton of similar algorithms for the same problem always look messy and unsatisfying to me.
Actually, in some ways, reviewing and beta-reviewing are not all that different from simply reading papers. In all three cases I prefer to pay attention to the particularly insensible parts and similarity to earlier work, which would help me write a sound rejection when reviewing (IMHO giving an acceptance is generally much less satisfying to the reviewer than a good rejection, unless the paper is really, REALLY helpful), point out potential grounds for rejection when beta-reviewing, and to put the idea in the paper into the Big Picture when just reading papers. This requires quite a lot of time on reading earlier papers related to the topic, but I find it quite helpful. I am not a believer of TIMTOWDI and a ton of similar algorithms for the same problem always look messy and unsatisfying to me.