What is the ideal relationship between peer review activities and number of published papers?
The relation is inverse. The peer review reduces/slows down the number of publications. This is because peer review makes recommendation to the editor to either accept or reject submitted manuscripts. In predatory journals, which operate without peer reviews, papers are accepted without delay and this increases the number of published papers for those who patronize them.
The quality of published papers should be considered more than the quantity
Dear William Pérez
The answer to your question depends on: "who asks?".
With your scientific scores and position you should "give back" (as Marcus Clauss and Witold Bogusz suggested) more reviews than actually published contributions.
But same requirements should not be imposed on young researchers who actually do not even appear in reviewer's searches. The optimal review/contribution relationship should be proportional to the researcher's position and experience :-)
Review to publication ratio in Publons is (so far) very misleading. One must notice that the contributions are directly imported from Web of Science and Orcid. The number of verified reviews is based only on reviewers information (request) delivered to Publons.
Dear Jaroslaw:
Yes, you are right, I just want to know the opinion of other scientists. In a lot of journals the revision is automatically added to Publons.
Thanks for your response.
William
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers