Ibrahim,

On first blush, I am reminded of paying my taxes; it can be painful, but the ship will sink without it.

Reviewing, done well, is very time consuming, and requires at least as much expertise as doing and promulgating one's own research. I think that for most of us, participation comes from a relatively noble desire to control and enhance the quality of scholarship in our arena. I suspect that the rewards will continue to be internal. One might wonder whether more recognition among employers (universities, etc.) might help. I don't know the answer to that, but I am doubtful, and also doubtful that such reward structure could be changed from publication to review of publications. Perhaps there are counter examples out there.

I am also reminded of answering questions here on RG; I expect that the motivation is similar. If I may, I would invite others to consider that as well; I would certainly be interested in why we answer:-)

I look forward to the reactions of others.

John

John Morris

Your input deserves further discussion. A thoughtful point is how employers (universities/ research centers) acknowledge and reward the contribution of employed reviewers!

I hope others will respond to all these issues.

John

I share John Morris ' view. If you publish in journals you should review for them too. That said, it is important for editors to desk reject more papers.

Daniel Wright very good point to lighten the load.

Thanks,

John

I'm not sure about desk reject but I do know that I once got a paper per month from a journal. After a year I stopped reviewing for that journal.

Best, D. Booth

I rarely reject the invitation to review papers, although it takes time.

On the other hand, I was in a situation that my paper was rejected because no reviewer was found to do the review of the paper.

At my University, reviewing for international high ranking journals is one of the criteria for the promotion when applying to the higher academic position.

Regards, Jelena

Really it is a daunting job for editors. However, most editors either get paid or get recognition from the academia for such a challenge. On the reviewer's side, again there are people who get motivated by payments given that it is also of great importance for career growth. Overall, Universities and research institutions should consider this academic review as a promotion/recognition criteria so that people get motivated to review. Besides, it would be worth if editors allow suggestions from authors and then check profile of the suggested reviewer for suitability.

The journal publisher could offer a small voucher for books, like they do for book proposal reviews. Or at least send them the paper electronically when it is published as a thank you.

David Eugene Booth , on desk rejections, I think there are two types. The first is where the editor would reject it regardless of what reviewers say. Usually this means there is some fatal flaw or it doesn't fit with the journal. The second is where there is something missing, like an adequate description of the methods, that means no review should occur. The editor should tell the authors to add or to change whatever. I get manuscripts of both of these types and it is the editor wasting reviewers' time. When I was an editor I always felt that I was placing burden on reviewers, so I wanted to make sure anything I sent to them I thought could be deemed publishable. If not, it is a waste of time. That is my view though, and I could see how desk rejections could be too much power in the hands of the editors. Some editors seem to think their job is just to check if 2 of 3 (or whatever) reviewers like it then to forward their generic revise and resubmit letter. Editors should use reviewers to help them to fine-tune their beliefs about the manuscript. And of course desk rejections save the authors time.