What is the benefit of being a peer-reviewer?

03 March 2015 69 2K Report

Is there any benefit of reviewing papers for journals? As a graduate student, I have been privileged to review some papers. While some journals acknowledge peer reviewers by publishing their names annually, others do not. Do you think reviewing papers has any advantage (not in monetary terms) to the reviewer? What have you benefited from reviewing papers? Kindly share with it.

Aristidis Matsoukis Popular answer

Apart from the interesting responses of the colleagues, peer-reviewing may help a person to become more tolerant not only in science, but in life too. And this, is surely a benefit.

Regards

Michael W. Marek

I think there are two advantages:

1. Reviewing other papers in your field is a critical thinking process that may provide new insights about your own work.

2. In the United States, at least, performing peer review is considered to be "service to profession" and therefore can be part of a promotion portfolio.

When you complete and submit your review, the journal should send you an email acknowledging your work, which serves as your documentation.

I would also say that I have been successful with several journal publications of my own, so when I perform peer review, I think of myself in a mentoring role. This may not be a direct benefit, but I see peer review as helping other scholars to succeed, so it does make me feel good.

Marcos Augusto Lima Nobre

Dear Dr. Dumbili:

Your question is complex, then I make option by the specific subdivision approaching each part with proper importance in my context.

“Is there any benefit of reviewing papers for journals?”

There is a set of benefits in the reviewing of papers. But benefits depending on the experience and specific stage of carrier of the reviewer. During a long development of its carrier, a reviewer undergoes a continuous maturation with direct impact at aspects intellectual, ethical, analytical and professional. As a whole, the enhancement and improvement of so relevant set of features providing the professional evolution, with reflex at around. While I am a reviewer of several papers all moths, several papers developed by me and mine team are reviewed also. Typically, youngers reviewers are focused on error starting from English language, formula, signal of a formula, absence of a classical reference, error bar. Sometimes, the inexperienced reviewer desires in an unconscious manner rewrite the paper. Well, I think that the approach mentioned is in fact non useful to the editor. With years, I think that the major focus is in the set of right and identification of contributions from small one to giant one. Here, is necessary the definition of reviewer; that not have the objective of generating any kind of controversy. Any another can be useful.

- The reviewer is the faithful representative of the journal Editor being assigned to the one a set of relevant tasks; perhaps the most important is the non-judge of the paper since he is not a kind attorney/judge. Instead, should prospect scientific and technological contributions call of pros providing its comprehensive listing and its support item by item from manuscript.

Seems that, the further strategy that can to avoid some kind of excess by reviewers has been applied by some journal Editors. The first step is to transform the associate editor in an extremely functional peace of journal. The view of associate editor is fundamental. Two external reviewers should compose the review-report. It is very important, that each reviewer can be see another reviews. It is not necessary complete accordance with all item, but is expected some coherence about a kind of thinking-line.

“As a graduate student, I have been privileged to review some papers. While some journals acknowledge peer reviewers by publishing their names annually, others do not.”

Despite that non necessary, really, is relatively common, some PhD advices re-pass some material under reviewing but this an officious question and from official is difficult to approach. Then, as exhibiting proofed actuation and recognized actuating in specific area, a graduate student can be nominated directly by Editor as reviewer, as above mentioned. The revision process is a priori an anonymous event, but really is not necessary after one year of production of journal further preserving of names of external reviewers.

"Do you think reviewing papers has any advantage (not in monetary terms) to the reviewer?"

The major set of advantages is abstract in essence being difficult to address the heart of the matter. Seems almost impossible to measure “…aspects intellectual, ethical, analytical and professional.”, as mentioned and first answer part. Depending on the affiliation institution, provide further assistance to Editors journals demand a great effort. Here, in the Sao Paulo State University, at present semester, I specifically am teaching three disciplines at undergraduate courses and two disciplines for graduate course.

"What have you benefited from reviewing papers? Kindly share with it."

Recently, in my action area, I have learned in first hand that there is in operation a deep transformation in the production of knowledge. To the previous item, can be added more complex another. But also is obvious that a researcher that receive 20, 30 or more papers to provide some kind of paper review, a priori have conditions to influence the development of are of specific- knowledge; this is not good.

More recently, some couple of years ago, here at Sao Paulo State University, the professional performance of each member starts to be valued in a period of three years. One time by year, all should provide further filling in a form of a spreadsheet called of assessment-spreadsheet; after each three years an average is derived stemming this score a minimum value ascribed to a recommended level.

In this assessment-spreadsheet there are four macro areas, each one representing an area in which the professor can actuate in the university: Teaching; Administration, Extension to the Community and Research. Each one of these areas exhibit a wide set of sub-item relevant specifically. In this sense, at item Research there is a sub-item review of papers. Each one should be report the number of reviews carried out, each review have a specific value, all values are added to final result; this result is computed up to a specific limit. All item of spreadsheet are added. There is minimum value to be reached. Each time (period), that minimum score is not reached, there is some kind of advertence, after three, one administrative process can be open with objective of apply an administrative-sanction, with direct impact under the carrier and salary. Here, therefore, there is a real benefit for reviewing of papers, is minimum the gain but exist in practical terms.

Kind regards

Marcos Nobre

Musab A. Al-Tarawni

Dear Emeka W. Dumbili,

I would like to thank you for your question. Good answers and several useful links to go deep in this question.

Best regards,

Musab Tr

Adejoke Yetunde Onaolapo

It allows the reviewer to become more familiar with the field by looking through the eyes of other researchers.

Emeka W. Dumbili

Many thanks for these answers. Sure, based on experience, there are many benefits. In fact, without reviewers, junk science will have its way.

Aristidis Matsoukis

Apart from the interesting responses of the colleagues, peer-reviewing may help a person to become more tolerant not only in science, but in life too. And this, is surely a benefit.

Regards

Aristidis Matsoukis

Also, from another point of view, journals, through the process of peer-reviewing, may evaluate and offer their reviewers another position, e.g. a membership in their editorial boards.