Also, do people receive too man invitations to submit from publishers? spam? Is this getting worse?
Mmm depends if i know the topic or not, and for each review i take 1 hour aproximately.
Four manuscripts/year could be a good number for me, each one could take 3 to 6 weeks!
Interesting range of times. I normally take half a day. If the impact factor of the journal is larger i would take one day. Also if it is a journal i have published in already i am familar with what is expected abd firmat and guidelines. This is typically then much easier. I get requests now every week and gain little credit fir foing such work within my job.
I get different types of manuscripts to be reviewed in a year. Some are full papers for peer reviewed Journals (one to three per year), manuscript (full papers) for peer reviewed conferences (one to two per year) and abstracts for peer reviewed conference proceedings (4 to 8 per year). Time allocated for each category varies. Full papers for peer reviewed journals and conferences may take half to one day (full time) depending on the quality and the content of the paper. Abstracts might take few minutes to an hour (maximum).
At present we are getting too much requests from Publishers, invitations to submit manuscripts and chapters, spam etc. This has become a problem as almost all of them want to pay for the service (invite to publish with them and ask to pay for processing). The quality of the publisher, credibility of them etc. could not be verified. In some cases, the information provided by them, in terms of indexing etc are not correct.
I agree. I get so many requests these days to submit a paper or chapter, book ideas for open journals all of which you need to pay. Also spurious requests to give talks even in totally unrelated topics. Odd. Other people around the coffee table get such requests as well. The latest ones need editors for journals!!!!
To be fear I'm reviewing as many paper as I submit to be reviewed by other researchers. The time needed to perform a review depends basically on my occupations but I never exceed one month. I don't like to be long for such responsibility.
The most difficult part of reviewing is the "Decision". In this point I think that researchers should not be asked if the paper needs to be accepted or rejected because it depends most of the strategy of the Journal and its Impact Factor. These parameters are controlled by the Chief Editor. He should have enough comments form ours to accept or reject the paper.
Hi all, I review one per month, and it takes me a day, but not continuous,, and the problem is in the final decision
Usually I receive about five invitations in an month both in inbox and spam category. But I review only one article (review article/full length publication etc.) in a month and mostly it takes me a week (1-2 hrs / day). The reviewing process is getting worse as those fellows who haven't yet published also receive the review invitations (in spam) and many a times they review some of the articles without having the technical know how of the peer review process which often brings technically incorrect publications to the fore and mislead the scientific community. So in order to curb these things, some criteria should be framed at national and international levels for selection of a reviewer to review a particular article . After following the set criteria each journal should have the permanent reviewers for different subject matters. In this way the peer review process can be be streamlined.
I like to review for Elsevier, because they give me an open access to Scopus. It is really helpful for us (most of Ukrainian researchers), who has no access to peer - reviews. Generally it takes 2 days or about 4 hours (depending on the subject and the rank of the journal).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agriculture
- Soil Science
- Soil