Being a reviewer is not a problem but a credit to the scientist. It is a recognition by different journals that a scientist is an expert in a specific field of science. Good and timely reviewing of articles is beneficial on several counts: 1. national or international recognition outside one's institute/university; 2. provides an opportunity to know latest research being carried out in one's own field by other researchers around the globe; 3. gives an opportunity to help other researchers to publish their research in good journals; 4. it is a good learning experience if the article being reviewed describes new technique/result/effect etc.; 5. a good and consistent reviewer is not only sought after by good journals but in due course of time may be offered editor or editor-in-chief position which certainly is a credit to the scientist.

I became editor of many journals and continuously receive offers of editorship from many journals but due to time constraint is not a position to accept these offers.

Research is not always about cost-benefit ratios or recognition. A true researcher/scientist should delight himself/herself in what he/she does and derive self-satisfaction. For a committed researcher recognition/rewards automatically follow. A dedicated scientist never runs after recognitions or rewards but they follow him/her.

In several colleges, the academic staff who review the work of others are given the due acknowledgement and respect.  Some journals openly acknowledge their reviewers, and this is good and right.  But for some of us, we need to put in time and effort on writing, researching and collaborating.  I think that's why some people turn down the commitment of being a reviewer.  Thanks.

Have a look at the pros of being a reviewer, ' Being a reviewer is a good experience for early-career scientists, and a more open, interactive peer-review process offers some advantages and some disadvantages....'

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2013_04_17/caredit.a1300077

There are many benefits for being a reviewer:

- its service to the community

- return a favor (imagine that nobody's is reviewing your submitted manuscript)

- Learn (Seeing good (and bad!) examples help us develop and refine our own writing skills)

- enhance our reputation

I am reviewing 6 papers at the moment (4 for ICIS 2015 and 2 for two good journals) and this is time consuming but I am happy to do so !!

Being a reviewer is not a problem but a credit to the scientist. It is a recognition by different journals that a scientist is an expert in a specific field of science. Good and timely reviewing of articles is beneficial on several counts: 1. national or international recognition outside one's institute/university; 2. provides an opportunity to know latest research being carried out in one's own field by other researchers around the globe; 3. gives an opportunity to help other researchers to publish their research in good journals; 4. it is a good learning experience if the article being reviewed describes new technique/result/effect etc.; 5. a good and consistent reviewer is not only sought after by good journals but in due course of time may be offered editor or editor-in-chief position which certainly is a credit to the scientist.

I became editor of many journals and continuously receive offers of editorship from many journals but due to time constraint is not a position to accept these offers.

Research is not always about cost-benefit ratios or recognition. A true researcher/scientist should delight himself/herself in what he/she does and derive self-satisfaction. For a committed researcher recognition/rewards automatically follow. A dedicated scientist never runs after recognitions or rewards but they follow him/her.

B.R. Rajeshwara Rao has nicely summarize the benefits of having reviewer. I think that being a reviewer sharpen your research abilities. the reviewer not only get acquainted with new research happening in his field but also get new methodologies for problem solving.   its good practice researcher has to do.

Leaning how to write better articles (by learning from other authors' mistakes but also from good papers) and how to contribute to that journal (understand what they accept/reject, what other reviewers think of the same paper), getting an overview of new topics/research methods (sometimes), feeling good (by contributing to the academic community), looking good (in terms of your CV)...

I am the reviewer of many standard Journals of various publishing groups, I can't mention here.

Reviewing is a prestigious work, you may be recognized by reputed journals as researcher in a particular field. One gets exposure in different research methodologies, styles, and literature. It increases your recognition in peer group, friends, ans academics.

Only cost is the time, you have to devote on review of the paper.

Reviewing is an essential prerequisite for publishing. Endorsements from peer reviewers are believed to adjudge/establish/uphold the credibility of an article and the job of reviewing must be performed with utmost sincerity. It is important that substandard articles must not be recommended for publication.

Apart from various direct/indirect benefits of reviewing (quite a few mentioned by previous contributors), a reviewer himself gets his own article reviewed by some other reviewers (in turn) thus keeping the publishing process on.

Being a reviewer is a fine thing to do because not only do you learn from other researchers but it helps develop critical skills.  

Friends, if it happened that we don't have all the articles listed in the refs, what is the right manner that a reviewer can overcome this problem?  Such a thing happens to us who don't have a research grant and access to library accounts.  None of us can be sure the authors are citing correctly without checking, do you agree? Thanks for your wise answers that I hope to get.

If one becomes the reviewer, one enjoys benefits:

1. One's research is recognized

2. Accepted as researcher at international level

3. One's exposure will increase

4. One's status increases

5. One's students will be benefited

6. One's research will be improved

7. Etc. ... .

Well said Dr. Rahul I know teachers want recognition and if their contribution is not recognized, they may feel bad. As I know many of the journal/conference proceedings include the name of reviewers in editorial committee/reviewers’ committee and if it is not then very simple answer to this problem is that “power is gained by sharing knowledge not hoarding it”. If you know how to review, it is first step to wisdom, however if you help others in making quality papers it is first step to humanity. Being researchers, it is our responsibility to disseminate knowledge in such a way so that the whole researchers’ community may be benefited.

Being reviewer is a form of recognition by peers at international level, it is also a stimulating mean to keep performing good work. Even if it is not counted in the career promotion,  it is a self satisfaction from being respected and invited to share opinions on others works. It helps as well to keep updated on the recent trends of the field , to be reviewed on ones reviews by feed back process and to keep learning from peers. Even if it is time consuming following the imposed deadlines, i think that researchers couldn't decline  invitations from serious journals and conferences, by respect and dedication to science and to their peers, and may be dedicate some time of their social life to meet with the deadlines;

May also read the responses to my following question:

What is the recognition accorded to a manuscript reviewer? Edit

When manuscript reviewers take up the assignment and try to maintain the stipulated time-frame within their own routine schedule as an additional activity to quench their academic appetite shouldn't their contribution be recognized in some form?

What is the recognition accorded to a manuscript reviewer?. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_recognition_accorded_to_a_manuscript_reviewer [accessed Jun 4, 2015].

Being a reviewer  provides opportunity to contribute towards academic fraternity and also expands one's horizons to inculcate new understanding and new ideas.

Dear @Rahul, there are both advantages and disadvantages for peer-reviewers. Fine reading follows!

https://explorable.com/advantages-of-peer-reviews

https://explorable.com/disadvantages-of-peer-reviews

The Benefits of Being a Reviewer : In short, having peer review experience can benefit you by:

• Improving your own research skills as you learn from others’ work

• Enhancing the focus of your own research

• Keeping you up to date with the latest research in your field – and beyond

• Improving your article writing and presentation skills

• Strengthening your general ability to critique research!

http://exchanges.wiley.com/authors/the-benefits-of-being-a-reviewer_709.html

http://www.la-press.com/la_press_news.php?pa=view&news_item_id=3774

Well, Dr. Rahul Pratap Singh Kaurav has asked a good question. I believe he is more interested to understand the actual benefits of being a reviewer. To respond to this nature of question, one has to weigh the advantages and disadvantages. In this case, it is, so, interesting to read the points put forward by previous contributors like Ridhi Anora, Fairouz Bettayes, Navita Nathani, Barbara Sawicka, Subhash .C. Kundu, Mirandu Yeoh, Ali Tarhini, B.R. Rajeswara Rao and Ljubomir Jacic. They have provided enough regarding benefits to reviewers and I totally agree with them. However, none has mentioned about monetary benefits. For example, some journals, if not all of them, they charge publication fees/promotion fees/communication fees which in most cases is in local currency or foreign currency. But if one becomes a reviewer may be exempted from paying such fees especially when contributing to the same journal or any belonging to sister company. So, I feel that actual benefits of being a reviewer are best defined by a reviewer himself/herself because from all points outlined it shows that there are perceived differently by society including institutions due to both advantages and disadvantages attached to the type of responsibility.

Getting a great exposure!

Get recognition for the quality of your reviews!

Editors can now show their appreciation by rewarding you based on the quality of your reviews.

"The quantity of reviews was, up to now, the main source of recognition. The more reviews completed, the more rewards achieved. For example, if you completed at least one review within a two-year period, you became a “Recognized Reviewer”. If you completed more and ended up in the top 10th percentile, you became an “Outstanding Reviewer”.  Since the launch of the Reviewer Recognition platform, more than 450,000 reviewer individual profiles with a “status” have been created.

It’s now time to take this one step further and enable recognition based on the quality of your reviews..."

https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/peer-review/get-recognition-for-the-quality-of-your-reviews

  I totally agree with answer of my colleague Chalamalla Srinivas above.