2

Sometimes I review papers that require more than one round of referee reports (e.g., first round was a "major revision", second round a "minor revision", and ultimately acceptance in third round). When listing the referee activity in my CV, I count these set of referee reports written for the same manuscript and the same journal as a single peer review. I believe that this was the common practice.

However, since the raise of services like Publons that allow to credit each individual referee report that is carried out by a reviewer, I wonder if researchers now tend to emphasize more the number of referee reports in the CV rather than the number of peer reviews (somehow giving an impression of a higher peer reviewing activity).

My question: is the common practice nowadays to list in the CV the number of peer reviews or the referee reports?

|improve this question|||||
  • 6
    I might suggest that the number of people who really care about such details is pretty small. I can't speak for anyone else, but in my hiring decisions of PhDs, I don't care and likely would look a bit negatively at anyone touting their number of reviews. The number of, and quality of, papers is way more important. Refereeing is just an expected part of taking part in publishing. – Jon Custer Jan 8 at 17:24
  • 1
    I do not know whenever it's common practice or not, but I would certainly find it weird to count the number of reports instead of the number of reviews. Mentioning how many reviews were for journal (and which journals) and how many were for conferences (and which conferences) is, on the other side, common and, I believe, an important indication. But that's probably enough information. – Clément Jan 8 at 17:36
  • 4
    Reviewing can be an important marker of esteem in the field, but I'd say the important thing us which journals are asking you to review, not how many reviews you are doing for each. – Ian Sudbery Jan 8 at 17:37
  • Like John Custer said. I would personally write Epsilone works as referee for several international journals and that is. I would only count referee activity in details if that would be part of an internal report and just if it counts for something, which is also unlike. – Alchimista Jan 10 at 7:34
9

I have served on several search committees lately for faculty members, and, honestly, I haven't seen one CV structure the peer review section in this fashion.

In my personal opinion, doing so looks like CV padding. We all know that the reviewing process can have multiple read throughs and comments, so I do not think it is necessary to include the number of times you have done the process for each individual manuscript.

Just my two cents.

|improve this answer|||||

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.