---
'As a past editor of Marine Mammal Science and a present associate editor of the Journal of Mammalogy, I have had great difficulty in lining up reviewers. Sometimes it takes 8 or 10 tries to find someone who will agree to review a paper. The typical excuse is "I'm too busy."
First I try the people who have published the most relevant and recent papers on the topic in question. Then I move down the range of choices. The temptation, and sometimes the need, is to turn to potential reviewers in less-related fields or those who are not so "busy" (i.e., are not producing much themselves). This inevitably leads to less-knowledgeable reviewers and often reviews of lesser quality, which of course complicates the editor's job and sometimes enrages the authors.
If an average acceptance rate of 50% is assumed, and if each paper needs at least two reviews, then each paper published represents at least four reviews. Following this logic, if you publish three or four papers a year, you should be doing at least 12 to 16 reviews. Anything less means that you are sloughing off the work to others who are perhaps less knowledgeable and capable than you in your specialty, and you should not be upset when someone reviewing a paper of yours "doesn't have a clue."
Doing a fair share of peer reviews should be a recognized and expected part of the job for scientific professionals; it should be written into the job descriptions of salaried scientists and be considered in evaluating junior faculty for tenure. The caution should be "Publish and review, or perish."'
3 comments:
This letter expresses a concern that I've heard from many editors. I ran into the same problem myself when I was the editor of a journal. Sometimes people say to professors "You don't work very hard, do you? Just three hours a week in the classroom." Actually, reading and writing reviews is one of the major activities that takes our time!
Wow, that is definitely something I have not seriously thought about. Becoming a professional in a field entitles you with many responsibilities. I wish people would talk about these kinds of "daily activities" when asked about their careers. I always thought papers were reviewed by a select group of professionals paid by a journal.
Honestly, this mentality does not surprise me. I have corresponded with, or at least attempted to corrrespond with, scientists with an attitude consisting of the belief that their time is not to be spent on anything other than their work or the effort to obtain grants. Therefore, the thought that many scientists do not want to take the time to read, analyze, and critique papers written by their collegues is not a far fetched one. However, each of these scientist should be reminded that one day, probably not too far in the future, they will want their work reviewed by those most knowledgable in their field with the ability to understand and improve their work. But if those most knowledgable think like they do, this will be nearly impossible.
Post a Comment