Dear all,
How much paper reviews must a researcher write for journals to compensate the reviewing effort by the journals necessary for his/her publications?
Vincent Raoult concludes from his statistics: " I recommend scientists aim to conduct at least one review per publication they produce. This should ensure that the peer review system continues to function as intended." (see paper attached).
I don't agree with Vincent. I never counted the reviewer reports I received for my submissions, but I counted my papers. And each of them required at least two reviews with the real number lying probable close to 10, when including rejected manuscripts. In cases where more than two corresponding authors appear on the list, the number of necessary reviews is of course reduced. Half of my papers include two or three corresponding authors, which makes then something like 3-4 in average.
What is your estimation or your knowlegde about this?
AXEL
I will reply as author, regular reviewer and editor for Dyes & Pigments journal.
It seems reasonable to review 4/5 papers every accepted manuscript as corresponding authors condidering a submission requires 2/3 reviewers and a paper is accepted in average after 2 submissions.
In my opinion the most important point is to accept to review a paper only if you have expertise and time to do it seriously. A major problem I encounter as editor is review requests that stay without answer: this is the case if around 50% of request.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Anatomy
- Tissue