On reviewing
03 07, 11
I have realised that I am never without a reviewing task of some sort - a paper, a grant application, or a report. If there is one certainty in my scientific life, it is that as soon as I have caught up with my reviewing, a request (or more than one) appear in my inbox asking me to take on more such reviews. And that’s reasonable...every paper we submit requires two or three reviews, and simple maths tells me that I should therefore review three times as many papers or grants as I submit. Fair enough.
But, the system is currently horrible. Discussion about the failure of the peer review system often talks about the volume of the work, but there are other factors too, not the least of which are a) the electronic reviewing process and b) the disempowerment of editors.
If I am invited to review a paper for a journal for which I have not reviewed previously, I find that an ‘account’ has been magically created for me. I now need to log on, even to decline the invitation. Moreover, the log on process sometimes takes you to a tedious page asking for your ‘details’. Really, no is a simple reply.
And, it is not reasonable for me to nominate others - that’s the job of the editors, surely.
So, let me accept or decline by links within the body of the email.
Second, the reviewing process. Journals give me no flexibility on timing, irrespective of my current load. Three days before their deadline, the nagging emails start - let’s be clear here, these are all automated, and usually given the personal touch that is so rewarding - ‘do not reply, this is a robot ‘
Typically, I am given two to three weeks to review a paper, whether I have time or not, or whether I am on vacation. So, if there is any doubt about my ability to review, should I just refuse to review? Should I only accept my next reviewing task when I have completed the previous one?
And where does this review process sit in my priority list? My host institution might say ‘not very high’, the authors will say ‘top of your list’ and inevitably, I take the review home to complete, late in the evening when I should be doing something else.
I don’t know how to deal with this. I am failing to write up papers quickly enough, yet am agreeing to review more papers. That’s not logical, not defendable from the perspective of my own research and unacceptable from the point of view of funders and employers.
I’d love to be able to say ‘Thank you for this invitation to review - you are currently number four in the queue, and I will get to you as soon as I have time. Current estimates suggest this will be four to six weeks.
But, the system is currently horrible. Discussion about the failure of the peer review system often talks about the volume of the work, but there are other factors too, not the least of which are a) the electronic reviewing process and b) the disempowerment of editors.
If I am invited to review a paper for a journal for which I have not reviewed previously, I find that an ‘account’ has been magically created for me. I now need to log on, even to decline the invitation. Moreover, the log on process sometimes takes you to a tedious page asking for your ‘details’. Really, no is a simple reply.
And, it is not reasonable for me to nominate others - that’s the job of the editors, surely.
So, let me accept or decline by links within the body of the email.
Second, the reviewing process. Journals give me no flexibility on timing, irrespective of my current load. Three days before their deadline, the nagging emails start - let’s be clear here, these are all automated, and usually given the personal touch that is so rewarding - ‘do not reply, this is a robot ‘
Typically, I am given two to three weeks to review a paper, whether I have time or not, or whether I am on vacation. So, if there is any doubt about my ability to review, should I just refuse to review? Should I only accept my next reviewing task when I have completed the previous one?
And where does this review process sit in my priority list? My host institution might say ‘not very high’, the authors will say ‘top of your list’ and inevitably, I take the review home to complete, late in the evening when I should be doing something else.
I don’t know how to deal with this. I am failing to write up papers quickly enough, yet am agreeing to review more papers. That’s not logical, not defendable from the perspective of my own research and unacceptable from the point of view of funders and employers.
I’d love to be able to say ‘Thank you for this invitation to review - you are currently number four in the queue, and I will get to you as soon as I have time. Current estimates suggest this will be four to six weeks.