When you are deoing peer review, do you favor speed of the review process or depth of the review? I tend to respond to invitations to review immediately: it is just one click. But then, I take much time to write my review report.
Usually I take all the time given by the journal and send the report very close to the deadline. The only exception is when a manuscript is clearly to be rejected, then I try to save precious time and write a short review.
I noticed that there are two type of reviewers:
- The very quick, who repond in one or two days after acceptance of invitation, and give a very short overview of the paper explaining the reasons for recommendation.
- Then there are the slow but deep reviewers, who analyze every aspect of the paper and, besides providing a general commentary on the paper, they provide very extensive comments (e.g. a comment for almost every sentence in the paper).
It seems obvious that the first type of review requires short time (a couple hours max?) while the second may require much more time (many hours? days?)
As journals are very highly focused on fast review process, I wonder if the first approach is better.
Of course it requires the reviewer to be more skilled and experienced. While the second, more safe approach, may be preferred by less experienced reviewers.
A good balance needs to be stuck between comprehensive and quick. The author(s) are owed a good comprehensive review, as well as a fast turn-around of there manuscript.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Comment