How to ask to review for a specific conference or journal? [duplicate]

Question

I have been invited to review technical content in the past. However, if I want to be part of review process for specific conference/journal – how do I go about and suggest my availability?

Answer 1

In a word: networking.

Most conferences and journals don't have any formal process for people to offer themselves in this manner. I'm not exactly sure why not, because most publication venues are also always wishing they had more trustworthy reviewing capacity. I think it's the "trustworthy" part that's the issue: there is a notion that the people in charge of selecting reviewers should have some reason to believe the review you turn in will be a meaningful evaluation of the work under consideration. Still, in practice I often identify possible reviewers by looking at their online presence, so having a person submit themselves as a possible reviewer seems like it would be no less reliable — it's just that in my experience it's just not done.

Instead, the most frequent ways that I see people getting asked to be reviewers are

• by having people get to know them and think of them when they're looking for people to review, and
• by having other people who are declining to review point the editor to them as an alternative.

If you put the word out into your professional network that you are looking to review papers, then reviews will likely start coming your way. Furthermore, once you've reviewed for somebody, you'll be in their database: provide a high-quality and timely review and fill out the reviewer account with keywords and such, and you'll be more likely to be tapped again to review for the same venues, because reliable reviewers are like gold.

Answer 2

In my field, you don't solicit reviewing work. (In fact, most people would like to avoid being given reviews, as it is work with little reward. It's seen as a responsibility, rather than a privilege.)

Being asked to give reviews shows that you are respected in the research community and it is often listed under "service" on CVs. So I can understand why you would want to be asked.

When the editors or program committee receives a paper, they need to find reviewers. Who they select will be informed by many things, including:

1. Who they know. If they know you and that the paper is relevant to your expertise, then they will send it to you.
2. Referrals. They may ask someone else who declines to give a review, but suggests you instead.
3. Citations. If the paper in question cites your related work, then chances are you might be a good reviewer, so they'll send it to you.
4. Web presence. Before asking you to review a paper, they will probably google you to make sure you have the right expertiese. And, if all else fails, they might simply look for reviewers online by googling keywords.

So if you want to be asked to review a paper you should: (1 & 2) network with other researchers so that they think of you when they see a paper in your area, (3) write lots of papers so that your expertise are clear, and (4) have a good web presence so that people can find you and see what you do; that includes maintaining a professional web page and a google scholar account.

All of these tips are of course tips for success in academia in general!

Answer 3

In my field, it's quite uncommon to solicit review assignments, but there are fairly reliable ways to end up with them if one is so inclined. For many of the major annual meetings, there's often a request for abstract reviewers that one can sign up for.

Personally thought, I found the most reliable way to end up as a potential reviewer for a journal is to submit something to it. This is not the only way, but my heaviest review workload comes from journals I submit to regularly.