Just finsished a review (second round) finding that another five reviewers are providing comments as well. Finished a paper in the same journal with 8 reviewers on board. At the same time journals are complaining that the willingness to review is getting lower and lower. What is the point in asking 6 reviewers to do a review on a paper? Poor authors, just a matter of time that they have to fulfill contradicting tasks. This is not necessarily improving the paper. Why? Because it is unlikely the “best” reviewer being the most annoying one. But the annoying one will make sure that his/her views will be considered in the end.
What do you think about it?
Eight reviewers seems excessive - many good journals generically employ two - four reviewers, with three being the most common number that I have personally encountered.
I think 2-3 is ideal. More than three is disappointing, and the comments will be the opposite in some cases.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism