Cfxtrjtrk

It is probably a good thing to do, just for the experience. It will also get you on the good side of the professor.

However, make sure, in accepting, that the professor and others know that you haven't finished your degree yet. That might cause them to withdraw the invitation, of course, but it should be made clear.

The fact that they addressed you as "Dr." doesn't mean anything. In situations like a reviewer invitation, where the editor is sending an email to someone they don't know well, it's common that they will address the email with some generic title like "Dr." or "Professor" even though the title may not actually apply to the recipient. It's just too much trouble for them to look up each person's qualifications and tailor the message accordingly. So I wouldn't consider that by itself to be cause for concern.

The fact that you haven't finished your degree is not a factor, in and of itself, and I don't feel it's necessary to inform the editor of this.

However, like any other reviewer, you need to make an honest judgment as to whether you have the necessary expertise to review the paper. Keep in mind that as a reviewer, the research community is counting on you to decide if this paper belongs in the scientific record in this journal. Some questions to ask:

• Have you published in this area yourself?




• Are you familiar with other work in this area, so that you would likely know if there are significant related papers that the authors have not cited?




• Do you have a good sense of what most researchers in this field know, so that you can judge whether the article contains enough background information (or too much)?




• Have you read enough papers in this field to have a clear sense of what makes a paper good or bad? What sorts of results does the community find interesting? What are common errors? What level of detail is expected? Which parts of the paper will need the most careful attention, and which are uncontroversial?




• Have you read enough papers from this particular journal or conference to have a sense of the "quality" that they demand, or that their readers expect? Even if the paper is technically accurate and well-written, would you be able to judge if their results are significant enough to be worthy of publication in this particular journal / conference?

The average grad student is less likely to be able to answer "yes" to these, but you know your own background best. If you are not sure, you may wish to consult with your advisor or some other experienced research mentor.

It's true, as some other answerers mentioned, that the editor evidently thinks that you have the necessary expertise, probably based on your previous publication record or recommendations from other reviewers. But you still have to make the decision yourself, as you know yourself better than anyone else does. I don't mean to reinforce impostor syndrome here, but you can't say "the editor thinks I am qualified, therefore I am." I have certainly received papers to review where I knew I didn't know enough to do a good job, even if the editor thought I did. The editor is relying on you to evaluate your own qualifications, and to decline if you don't feel you can do the job properly.

Chances are the editor noticed you authored a paper on a similar topic and is inviting you based on that.

There's no harm doing this. You might feel you're not qualified, but you're being invited, therefore the editor thinks you're qualified. You shouldn't worry about writing a bad review either - full professors can write crappy reviews also, and if you read the paper in detail chances are you're already going to write a better-than-average review! If you're still concerned, you can always talk to your supervisor.

If you think you can do a decent job, do it. Even if you aren't a super expert, if you are a careful reader and thinker and willing to exert the effort, you may do a decent review. Sure, there is some possibility you may be too easy or strict (more likely the latter) but even in that case, realize editors get varying quality of reviews all the time.

Bottom line: graduate students are in many instances THE working researchers in science. I wouldn't be intimidated with doing a review, writing a paper, etc. Sure, you are not a PI, but that is more about grants, budgets, hiring people, legal position, etc. But a review? Just rock it out.

The way often editors pick reviewers is by looking at the cited references in the paper and calling on an author to review. The editor would probably go with the corresponding author, but if the author declines to review, the editor may go down the list of coauthors, some of whom might be graduate students. The "Dr" in the invitation is part of the form letter. It assumes that the reviewer has a PhD, which is why, as others have suggested, you should contact the editor and explain the situation. Chances are the editor will apologize and withdraw the invitation.

I am not convinced this is a good thing to accept to do. The frequency of inexperienced / incompetent / overworked reviewers is too high already as it is in academia at this point. In worst case unsuitable reviewers can make other quite capable students drop out because they lose faith in peer review process of articles.

I've seen it happen.

Consult your advisor

Regardless of the specifics of your message - an offer to review a paper which you have not previously discussed and arranged with its originator is something to consider carefully. Perhaps the best person to give advice is not random academics on this site, but someone who knows your field, (likely) knows the person involved, knows the journal etc.

Of course - don't tell your advisor any details which should be kept confidential, like an author name, title of the paper etc.

In this specific case, consider rejecting.

he titled me "Dr. Monkia" although I am still being a graduate student.

Indeed, this is a warning light. It means the sender doesn't know who you are, but more significantly, did not bother to check whether your background is appropriate to write the review. If they had bother, they'd have figured out you're not a PhD yet.

He asked if I couldn't review, I can ask a qualified colleague to do so, or let him know immediately.

Did he now? That's cute. "Can you do my work for me? If you can't, won't you be so kind as to find some other sucker to do it and arrange for it to be done?"

This does not sound like something a serious editor would say. If I had no other information, I would probably reject merely because of this sentence.

Of course, I am interested in the paper's topic, but I don't consider myself an expert.

So, this is not a good enough reason to reject review requests. On every specific subjects of a paper, only a handful of people in the world are experts (well, depending on the discipline I guess; it's like that a lot in Computer Science); and often none of them is available to review the paper. So people with related expertise have to do it. This also has some positive aspects, such as assessing applicability and relevance beyond the clique of those few people.

Bottom line: Unless your advisor, or people very familiar with that Professor or journal say otherwise, I'd be hesitant to accept.