Yes. The trouble is that the universities do not even ask for a count how many journal articles you referee. Nor do the universities get subsidies on based on how many you referee. Industry does not even know that refereeing happens. Yet refereeing requires quality time for research and writing, which always seems to be left out of so-called performance appraisals and so-called workload management.

Yes. The trouble is that the universities do not even ask for a count how many journal articles you referee. Nor do the universities get subsidies on based on how many you referee. Industry does not even know that refereeing happens. Yet refereeing requires quality time for research and writing, which always seems to be left out of so-called performance appraisals and so-called workload management.

At the University of Guanajuato we have a rather complicated system I call the "points game", where each January we make copies of documental evidence of just about everything we've done over the last year and load it all into electronic forms on a web site. The web site counts the points and assigns a rank. There are nine ranks and each level means an additional Mexican minimum wage for the next year. For reviewing an article for a journal we get a few points. It's a funny system and takes too much of our time, both for the professors and the reviewing committees, but at least it provides external motivation to work more, for those whose internal motivation is on the low side. Most Mexican public institutions have a similar system.

I have worked in an institution that tried a similar points game but did not use ICT - this meant that heads of department got the data then just made informed guesses about your academic outputs. But, in that system the real focus was on writing and reviewing was not regarding as being very important. It is quite shocking that we work in an environment that values research but that this key piece of the research cycle can be overlooked or downplayed. The leadership at my current institution often ask that academics publish in high impact peer reviewed journals but how can we have a good peer review system if reviewers are not given recognition?

I will be bold enough to say the the most important task the researcher can do is to referee. It adds to the prestige of the university and you as a researcher. It suggests new lines for your own research, and helps you to find future co-authors. It is even more important than supervising, because it is international.

Yes, the task of referee should be counted as a very important part of our work by the universities, even if it is not always the case, as Ian mentions. But it seems to me, as a referee/reviewer that publishers do not seem to give much credit to those who spend a lot of their time reviewing at the cost of research and writing.

To be more specific, for reviewing an external research project we get 10 points per project, with a maximum limit of 20 points; for reviewing a research publication, 5 points (maximum 15); for reviewing a publication for the general public, 5 points (maximum 10).

By way of comparison, for writing an article that gets published in a refereed journal, we get 15 points per article (maximum 30) for a regional journal, 25 points (maximum 50) for a national journal, and 45 points (maximum 90) for an international journal.

I suppose this part of the game is more or less fair. Some other parts are frankly incomprehensible.

The complete rule book can be seen here (in Spanish):

http://www.siia.ugto.mx/apoyo_profesores/Archivos/REGLAMENTO%20DE%20ESTIMULOS%202010.pdf

Thanks David. I will have a read through and see if I can find some suggestions for our institution.

A high-quality review not only helps the authors improve their research and clarity of writing but also helps the reviewer improve his or her writing and organization of information. Although I'm not sure if the positive effect on reviewers' writing is the result of the reviewer considering a manuscript from the reader's perspective or the reviewer's determination to spare others from poorly written manuscripts! Detailed, constructive reviews require considerable time, but it might be less frustrating to consider your reviewing efforts a gift to your field rather than to expect budget-strapped universities to compensate you (in any form) for reviewing efforts. Hopefully, the gift you make as a reviewer will be returned to you when others in your field agree to review your manuscripts.

"A thoughtful review of a manuscript is a gift. It is a gift of expertise, of time, and of careful consideration. It is a gift for authors, editors, and the field" (Roberts, Coverdale, Edenharder, & Louie, 2004, p. 81).

[Article available at http://ap.psychiatryonline.org/data/Journals/AP/2548/81.pdf]

Diane,

I agree with you in part. But because of its importance, peer reviewing is as important, and sometimes even more important than being a member of an examination committee for a PhD or a Masters dissertation. Why shouldn't it be considered as part of our academic "routine" as much as any other tasks? If Universities are adopting a rather universal system of staff evaluation, then peer reviewing ought to be included.

David,

Thank you for the reference of the document. It is a start.

You are welcome, Custodio.

I think the big drawback to the "points game" is that it can lead to a "dalmation complex" in some professors, who tend to orient their work towards collecting points instead of more noble persuits like serving our students, producing quality research, and sharing the fruits of our labors with society in general. For example, some undergraduate students have trouble finding qualified thesis advisors because the points game favors advising graduate students, particularly at the PhD level.

David,

Yes, that's a real draw back, but it if the institution implements a system of managing the points you have, from peer reviewing or any other tasks by weight, that problem can be easily overcome. As such, you would only have a certain percentage of the total of points accumulated for peer reviewing so as not to overshadow other important tasks such as teaching or thesis supervision.

I agree, Custodio. Fine-tuning the system by redistributing the points can overcome at least some of the problems.

Regard refereeing as part of your paid job, and lock yourself away to do the refereeing. (Trouble is, the queue at the door just seems to gets longer!)

Hi all,

I am in the second year of my Ed D and have found that peer reviewing is immensley helpful but often colleagues are uncertain and unwilling to act - because they are not fully aware of what is required, how ito do it and the benefits. I am keen to show that it helps to improve research, drafting and thinking skills not to mention make you aware of what is going on in the outside arena .

Caroline - I quite agree, reviewing work helps improve my own thinking and writing skills. When we read final printed articles our focus is on the project itself but reviewing helps us focus on the way that an article is structured, supported and expressed. These are key writing skills but are rarely taught. So reviewing is a learning experience. Like Ian says, I regard it as part of my job - I just wish that others did too.

Seems like we all have similar tales to tell. The system clearly has flaws (it is overlooked by management and colleagues don't always have the time to offer good quality reviews) but it also has benefits (personal/professional growth and support for others). David (above) describes his university's points system and I think that a version of this is a good idea (David - I am still working my way through the full document as my Spanish is not very good). I also wonder if more online open-review review would make a difference as then your contribution is out there for all to see.

We do have plenty of "free" hours at our university workplace, in the sense that we can use plenty of time to read whatever we like, write whatever we like - besides our regular activities in teaching, research, administration, grading, and so on -, and among those hours we are expected to also perform at least some refereeing duties if we are asked to. I find it to be not only natural - as I ask others to read my own submissions! The system will fall if too many refuse to read, so we all have to contribute by reading manuscripts!

My count is 235 papers in journals, 67 conference proceedings papers, and also 67 published paper reviews for Mathematical Reviews. What's yours? 

And I can safely say that each and every one scientist out there who do have free time simply HAVE TO do their duties refereeing, since otherwise the system will collapse, sooner or later. So don't hesitate to volunteer - I did so already as a second-year PhD student, and it is a very good way of expanding your horizon, as well as clarify to yourself and others what GOOD research actually is. And what is not. :-)

Dear Erik,

The harder is some universities do not accept international publication in Springier , Emerald and Elsevier but convince with the local publication that limit within 150 Km from  somewhere.

Dear Erik,

Being a reviewer in a good reputation database such as Springier, Emerald and Elsevier and other goods should be considered in the promotion of staff. Being a reviewer is to do a volunteer work and  help other scientists within the ethics of academic life.

That is weird, Aly. Why is there such a restriction?

I do hope that refereeing shall again be something that the scientific leaders as well as the administrative ones will see as a positive part of work: when you do your refereeing duties you do NOT only pick at mistakes and tell the author(s) about them, you also:

1. Learn to be a sharp observer of errors, misjudgements, clumsy formulations, unclear motivations, bad ways of creating figures and tables, and so on, and therefore get more knowledge about these things yourselves. This way you might help the author(s) learn about these things, such that scientific writing will improve, globally.

2. From good papers you learn more about good writing styles, as well as all kinds of small and large things that are good to remember - nice formulations, nice presentations, a good structure of the paper, and so on. 

In summary: you take part in a necessary system for publishing to continue, you make the publications better, and you learn something along the way.

Ian: you are quite right that refereeing and being an editor is something that over the years have become more of a burden - if you were to ask the managers, at least.

For me, refereeing is somewhat easier these days, if you discount the fact that I have much less time to devote to the task. We now have databases of journals that therefore are much easier to find, if you need to source something that is cited in the paper you are refereeing; that part has become quite efficient.

But as an editor it is certainly harder now than only a few years ago: some potential reviewers do not even care to respond to my invitations for example - unheard of ten years back.