Skip to main content
typo
Source Link
jakebeal
  • 190.6k
  • 42
  • 663
  • 933

Speaking as an editor and conference organizer, good and reliable reviewers are hard to find. For somebody to be a good reviewer, in addition to being in the right discipline, they must be:

  1. A strong enough scientist that I trust their opinion
  2. Capable of expressing their analysis of a paper clearly and constructively
  3. Good enough at time-management to return the review rapidly
  4. Not too overloaded with other responsibilities to accept

Lots of authors fail these tests, especially the first one---anybody who has spent significant time reviewing knows that there are a lot of very bad papers being written. Moreover, papers that are rejected often get revised and sent elsewhere, so they may require multiple sets of reviewers. All of this adds up to the following: if you are a good and trusted reviewer in your community, you will be in high demand, and it's reasonable to have a ratio of greater than 1:1.

For example, in the last three years, excluding grant and tenure case reviews, according to my records I have reviewed 31 papers in 2012, 24 papers in 2013, and 30 papers so far in 2014 (with a few more committed to return before the end of the year). This puts my ratio well above 1:1, with the actual value mainly depending on fluctuations in the denominator.

In sum, I recommend viewing reviewing not in terms of ratios, but in terms of how much time you are comfortable devoting to quality reviews for venues that you wish to support. Don't accept review requests from journals or conferences that you do not respect: there are many low-quality publications that can waste your time. Also, don't accept more reviewing than you can handle, even if that means your ratio is lower: it's better to give one well-thought reviewsreview than two hasty and shallow reviews that may miss important points and piss off the authors. Do respond yes or no to every review request promptly: otherwise, you are making a problem for an editor who doesn't know whether they need to recruit more reviewers or not.

Speaking as an editor and conference organizer, good and reliable reviewers are hard to find. For somebody to be a good reviewer, in addition to being in the right discipline, they must be:

  1. A strong enough scientist that I trust their opinion
  2. Capable of expressing their analysis of a paper clearly and constructively
  3. Good enough at time-management to return the review rapidly
  4. Not too overloaded with other responsibilities to accept

Lots of authors fail these tests, especially the first one---anybody who has spent significant time reviewing knows that there are a lot of very bad papers being written. Moreover, papers that are rejected often get revised and sent elsewhere, so they may require multiple sets of reviewers. All of this adds up to the following: if you are a good and trusted reviewer in your community, you will be in high demand, and it's reasonable to have a ratio of greater than 1:1.

For example, in the last three years, excluding grant and tenure case reviews, according to my records I have reviewed 31 papers in 2012, 24 papers in 2013, and 30 papers so far in 2014 (with a few more committed to return before the end of the year). This puts my ratio well above 1:1, with the actual value mainly depending on fluctuations in the denominator.

In sum, I recommend viewing reviewing not in terms of ratios, but in terms of how much time you are comfortable devoting to quality reviews for venues that you wish to support. Don't accept review requests from journals or conferences that you do not respect: there are many low-quality publications that can waste your time. Also, don't accept more reviewing than you can handle, even if that means your ratio is lower: it's better to give one well-thought reviews than two hasty and shallow reviews that may miss important points and piss off the authors. Do respond yes or no to every review request promptly: otherwise, you are making a problem for an editor who doesn't know whether they need to recruit more reviewers or not.

Speaking as an editor and conference organizer, good and reliable reviewers are hard to find. For somebody to be a good reviewer, in addition to being in the right discipline, they must be:

  1. A strong enough scientist that I trust their opinion
  2. Capable of expressing their analysis of a paper clearly and constructively
  3. Good enough at time-management to return the review rapidly
  4. Not too overloaded with other responsibilities to accept

Lots of authors fail these tests, especially the first one---anybody who has spent significant time reviewing knows that there are a lot of very bad papers being written. Moreover, papers that are rejected often get revised and sent elsewhere, so they may require multiple sets of reviewers. All of this adds up to the following: if you are a good and trusted reviewer in your community, you will be in high demand, and it's reasonable to have a ratio of greater than 1:1.

For example, in the last three years, excluding grant and tenure case reviews, according to my records I have reviewed 31 papers in 2012, 24 papers in 2013, and 30 papers so far in 2014 (with a few more committed to return before the end of the year). This puts my ratio well above 1:1, with the actual value mainly depending on fluctuations in the denominator.

In sum, I recommend viewing reviewing not in terms of ratios, but in terms of how much time you are comfortable devoting to quality reviews for venues that you wish to support. Don't accept review requests from journals or conferences that you do not respect: there are many low-quality publications that can waste your time. Also, don't accept more reviewing than you can handle, even if that means your ratio is lower: it's better to give one well-thought review than two hasty and shallow reviews that may miss important points and piss off the authors. Do respond yes or no to every review request promptly: otherwise, you are making a problem for an editor who doesn't know whether they need to recruit more reviewers or not.

Source Link
jakebeal
  • 190.6k
  • 42
  • 663
  • 933

Speaking as an editor and conference organizer, good and reliable reviewers are hard to find. For somebody to be a good reviewer, in addition to being in the right discipline, they must be:

  1. A strong enough scientist that I trust their opinion
  2. Capable of expressing their analysis of a paper clearly and constructively
  3. Good enough at time-management to return the review rapidly
  4. Not too overloaded with other responsibilities to accept

Lots of authors fail these tests, especially the first one---anybody who has spent significant time reviewing knows that there are a lot of very bad papers being written. Moreover, papers that are rejected often get revised and sent elsewhere, so they may require multiple sets of reviewers. All of this adds up to the following: if you are a good and trusted reviewer in your community, you will be in high demand, and it's reasonable to have a ratio of greater than 1:1.

For example, in the last three years, excluding grant and tenure case reviews, according to my records I have reviewed 31 papers in 2012, 24 papers in 2013, and 30 papers so far in 2014 (with a few more committed to return before the end of the year). This puts my ratio well above 1:1, with the actual value mainly depending on fluctuations in the denominator.

In sum, I recommend viewing reviewing not in terms of ratios, but in terms of how much time you are comfortable devoting to quality reviews for venues that you wish to support. Don't accept review requests from journals or conferences that you do not respect: there are many low-quality publications that can waste your time. Also, don't accept more reviewing than you can handle, even if that means your ratio is lower: it's better to give one well-thought reviews than two hasty and shallow reviews that may miss important points and piss off the authors. Do respond yes or no to every review request promptly: otherwise, you are making a problem for an editor who doesn't know whether they need to recruit more reviewers or not.