Whether I like the journal, or have published there, makes no difference whatsoever - we are here to support a duty that we all depend upon to be reciprocated - i.e., we need for others to scrutinise what we write. If we don't, then the publishing industry will sink.

I have refereed more than 300 manuscripts by now, discounting the very many reviews for the purpose to support Mathematical Reviews - which support the researchers with critical summaries of published papers.

Don't claim that you never have time to do that kind of duty - instead volunteer! I did two already as a PhD student beginner - maybe two Months after I started, with an introduction to the duty from my PhD supervisor.

The only occasion when you are allowed to turn an offer down is if you a have very heavy teaching load, which beginner PhD students nowadays very seldom has.

To volunteer to do the duty will - on the contrary - be a quicker way to learn the trade on how to criticise, and I can assure you that you will more quickly learn for yourself what writing style you prefer, as well as to learn how to write academic papers.

Hi Joseph M. Cheer, thank you for asking these questions. To provide a background to my answers as an early career academic, I engage in peer reviewing to improve my review skills, be updated with new works on my research interests, and enhance my ad-hoc reviewer portfolio.

1. However, I only accept peer review invitations as long as I: a) have direct knowledge of the subject matter and/or methods, and b) most importantly, have the time to complete the review on schedule. The journal title is not really a deciding factor, but I must admit I do get excited when I receive invitations to review for publications for the first time.

2. For most reviews I did, I usually received auto-response emails of thanks. However, I've also experienced not receiving any acknowledgement email (even an auto-response one) from one publication. For me, emails of thanks are extremely important and much appreciated because our work is voluntary. Also, some journals provide updates on the final decision for a paper, which I think really helps to keep reviewers in the loop.

Thank you and keep safe.

Thanks Richard. Good reviewers are worth their weight on gold and more. But at the same time, you don't want to exhaust the relationship. Given the demands on editors and reviewers, you don't want to lose the personal touch and authors do appreciate a personalised thank you I have found.

For me, I just can't accept all of the invitations that come in and oftentimes its easier to say no when the 'system' has not bothered to assess whether the papers I am asked to review are even suited to my research - for example I had a request a few days ago to review a paper on women's reproductive health!

The other thing that is an annoyance is when papers that should be desk rejected are not and arrive in my inbox looking unfinished and not ready.

See you around soon Dr. Aquino!

I'm in agreement Richard and Joseph. I will always be 'selective' about review invitations - and a god fit to my main areas of expertise is usually a good lure. I don't accept invites for 'random' invitations outside my disciplines. How established a journal is will often be a factor - but not exclusively. If it is a potentially 'interesting' article to review, for a less established journal, I'm willing to assist that journal. Everyone has to start somewhere.

I'm mostly used to auto-responses - which I don't mind at all. Better than nothing. I particularly appreciate when journals email back verdict and other reviewer comments.

Richard, hi,

To me, it's the subject of the paper what most counts (Q2).

As for Q1, it's of course very nice getting a personal message from an editor, but, given the sheer amount of papers some editors got to handle, and the need of having as much automation as possible into the process, well, I also understand that they don't ask me how my ageing father is doing... ;--)

I receive many more requests to review than I accept (I have performed 13 reviews or re-reviews so far this year). I serve on editorial boards of two journals, and I automatically accept their requests. There are two or three other journals that are reputable and in which I have published that I also automatically accept.

Otherwise I may "check out" the journal to determine its reputation, but I am reluctant to accept reviews from journals I do not know, or which have little prominence in the field.

For the record, here is the checklist of things I consider when performing peer review:

Method Performing Peer Review

Whether I like the journal, or have published there, makes no difference whatsoever - we are here to support a duty that we all depend upon to be reciprocated - i.e., we need for others to scrutinise what we write. If we don't, then the publishing industry will sink.

I have refereed more than 300 manuscripts by now, discounting the very many reviews for the purpose to support Mathematical Reviews - which support the researchers with critical summaries of published papers.

Don't claim that you never have time to do that kind of duty - instead volunteer! I did two already as a PhD student beginner - maybe two Months after I started, with an introduction to the duty from my PhD supervisor.

The only occasion when you are allowed to turn an offer down is if you a have very heavy teaching load, which beginner PhD students nowadays very seldom has.

To volunteer to do the duty will - on the contrary - be a quicker way to learn the trade on how to criticise, and I can assure you that you will more quickly learn for yourself what writing style you prefer, as well as to learn how to write academic papers.

I always review the papers for journals in which I am a member of EB. For the rest, it depends on the journal and the topic of the paper. After finishing the review proces, it is kind of a standard to send a thank you note to a reviewer.

Thanks all for your responses thus far. Michael Marek - the checklist you refer to is excellent!

The acceptance of review invitations, paraphrasing the responses above suggest a 'call of duty' and desire to give back to the academic community appears to be a strong driver for most.

Given the flood of new journals and rise of predatory practices, this seems to be intensifying reviewer selectivity and that is a good thing for established journals, less so for newer, fledgling ones.

Having run special issues for several journals, I have found getting reviewers for for high impact factor journals is so much easier. Recently, I received en email from an author who submitted a paper to the same special issue saying he/she did not have the time or interest in reviewing - I was taken aback but respected the position.

The point is, if you want your work published, this will require at last 6 peer reviews (triple blind) plus journal editor reviews - say 3 - in total 9.

For each paper you want published, this requires a total of 9 reviews - so say publishing three papers annually is your aim, 27 reviews in total. This puts the need for collegiality and reciprocity when it comes to peer reviewing into stark relief.

Its clear, we are all pressed for time but unless there is a spirit of reciprocity and sense of duty to the profession (as Michael Patriksson suggests), the peer review load falls on fewer shoulders.

In the end, a personalised thank you helps assure reveiwers that a human is involved and someone cares :).

Thanks for your insight Bailey. 22-23 a year would put you in the top echelon of reviewers. As an editor and special issue guest editor, I try to ensure that the invitation is relevant and likely of interest to the reviewer. So often, I get asked to review papers that are not even remotely aligned to my work - that is when I say no.

As for acknowledging reviewers, there must be a better way to acknowledge the time and effort that they provide. I would create a system that accords points to reviewers that can then be used to purchase book or papers - especially if the journal is not open access and owned by a for profit company.

Many thanks :).

Thanks everyone for your insightful feedback. These are all helpful, especially for me who is starting an academic career.

Joseph M. Cheer, I hope to see you around soon, too! I also receive requests to review papers (and even to serve as an editor) that are out of my subject area. In my case, these are often predatory publications.

Bailey Ashton Adie, that is an amazing lot of reviews! I also find it helpful to know the final decision for a paper and the other reviewers' comments. These help me identify how my feedback complement/diverge from others' perspectives. Cheers :)

Thanks all - as a new editor I'm keen to build an environment where reviewers are acknowledged and valued for their volunteer contributions. They play a vital role in academic knowledge production.

Happy researching and publishing!

Agree with your comment above! Joseph M. Cheer

1) My main decision to accept peer-review invitations is whether the subject is relevant to my work (plus, the time frame).

2) I remember receiving a decision email with a thank you note, but I don't think it was sent personally by a journal editor. Still, it was nice to receive such an email. :)

Hi Bailey,

I have recently got into publons.com through the last review I did for a North American journal. An interesting way of trying to recognise the work of reviewers. I will see how it goes and if it catches on. Might be worth a look.

All the best from Winchester,

Simon

There's a rather good - if I may say so myself, although I am one of the responsible - paper on how to write: just Google "Subben's checklist" and you will find a published paper on how to write and also how to scrutinise a submitted manuscript. Very many have used it, with good results. Good luck!

Dear Joseph M. Cheer

The first thing first, I look for the revelence with my field. Second, with out any prejudged decision, I thourghly goes through the methodlogy. Then results and discussions. Afterward, Introduction, conclusions and abstract. This give the assence of the ideas of the manuscript. As a results, I select a second “goes through” round of the manuscript in which I collect criticle points. After selecting these criticles points, I send it to authors via editor for further improvements ........

Dear Joseph M. Cheer "What underlines your decision to accept or reject the invitation? For example, do you only review for journals you have published in or are keen to publish in? Or must the subject matter be of direct relevance to your work for you to accept?":

My decision to accept or decline a reviewer invitation depends on the question if the topic of the manuscript matches with my areas of expertise (and to some extent if I find the work interesting). In the past ca. 30 years I reviewed very many manuscripts for ca. 40+ chemical journals, no matter if I published in these journals myself. I declined reviewer invitations only if the topic was far away from all my areas of expertise or in rare cases when I was out of office.

I never expected any personal response from the editors.

Actually, I consider three main items.

The relevance of the topic to my expertise...the quality of the article and the reputation of the journal..I prefer those belong to known publishers.

Regarding the response to the revision it is usually automatically sent and in some cases you can get review recognition certificate...

It is a good glance from the publisher

Like many here, I accept without problem to review if 1) the journal is not predatory 2) if my research subjects or my methodological approaches are really related to the paper that I am offered to evaluate. After the ranking is not important. I try to keep a balance in national and international reviews. I am not sensitive to a thank you email (personalized or not) for me it is part of the job of researcher.