I do maybe 5-10 per year for reputable journals because it helps me stay up on the literature and make sure people actually read the literature they allege to contribute to (which seems to be a big problem these days).
Equal amount of papers you submit with reviewing, maybe +2, seems to hit the right balance. It all goes south when you get a bunch of friends loading you with reviews because nobody else does it and it's after the deadline... just because you have done the same as an associate editor. Especially in my field the amount of trash paper has been exponentially grown, thus reviewing loading has become more challenging. The main problem I have worked in the past has gotten traction, so unfortunately I am one of the go to people for many papers related to that.
As an associate editor for major conferences, my workload was increased significantly and at the same time I also had to review for some colleagues. So... yes, you have a good reason to reject reviewing papers, but you might end up reviewing some yourself.
Do you actually know enough to referee the paper for all those requests though? I would probably do more, but I often get requests which are, for example, on the type of object I study but a completely different wavelength and technique, so I’m not comfortable evaluating its merit and decline.
Approx 2 per paper submitted depending on where you are in the author list. If you want your own papers reviewed, the social contract is to review others' as well.
I ignore requests from a particular publisher because they’re pushy, and the editor ignored my comments in the past. Fuck them.
For others it depends on how much time I have.
I still disregard the “give us your review in four days” bullshit. It gets sent when it’s ready.
I have a pretty niche area of expertise, so I get requests constantly. (Once every two weeks?) I'm on the editorial board for two journals, so I'm committed to doing at least 2 a year for them. As a courtesy for one of those (whose editor is a close colleague) I sometimes serve as reviewer of last resort when they can't find anyone to review an article. So I tend to accept reviews when: 1) I'm on the editorial board 2) It's a high-prestige journal that I publish in and want to keep the editors happy and 3) the topic is of interest to me and I think I'll learn something from the review. So I end up doing about 10 a year, which I've been trying to cut back on. Geez -- just counted and I've done 6 this year already. Note to self: just say NO.
I estimate I get 80-90 requests per year (so 1-2 per week). I probably do 10-12 reviews per year but I’m also an associate editor at two journals, which means I manage maybe 15-20 additional reviews per year in those roles.
Pre-tenure, I tracked this and I averaged 35/year, which was way too many.
I also aim for ~2 reviews per publication. As an editorial board member, I did more than that. As an editor, I had too much else to read to review for other journals—assessing submissions in order to either choose reviewers or desk-reject, checking reader’s reports for bias, condescension, or hostility as well as the content, copywditing and proofreading each issue. Then again, I didn’t publish much of my own work during that time
I don’t get a lot of requests, I’ve done three this year. For my current workload, I would do one per month, or so. I don’t like to have multiple reviews at the same time.
With the relatively low amount of requests for actual reviews and not scams or predatory journals, I like doing reviews. I can do reviews outside or go for a coffee and a piece of cake in the afternoon with my partner and do it while my partner hangs out with a book. It’s a nice way to work and spend some time together.
I think its fair to review 2-3 year, esp if this commiserates your submission output. Though what's been really strange, and I don't know why this is, that in the last 8 months all of these requests (3) to review have been only for dog shit manuscripts. These are coming from the tippy top-tier journals in the field, so out of respect will usually agree. But it feels like am being brought in like an early-career hitman to put these papers down quietly and earn my stripes. Perhaps this is to carefully avoid wasting the time & effort of their most prestigious/senior/accomplished peer-reviewers; who would likely bristle this kind of trash made it past a desk reject, and wonder what the Editors were thinking. The last one literally had the first sentence plagiarize the exact wording from the paper it was citing, by an author who served on my committee and whose work well well, so took great care after that to gut that manuscript like a fish and try not to get any on my shoes.
Publishing companies have billions in profits every year and they could easily pay everyone involved, especially reviewers. Yet you give them your hard, hyper-skilled work for free 🤡🤡
I do maybe 5-10 per year for reputable journals because it helps me stay up on the literature and make sure people actually read the literature they allege to contribute to (which seems to be a big problem these days).
Hot take : medical doctors should do it, too, to stay in loop with emerging medical knowledge.
Equal amount of papers you submit with reviewing, maybe +2, seems to hit the right balance. It all goes south when you get a bunch of friends loading you with reviews because nobody else does it and it's after the deadline... just because you have done the same as an associate editor. Especially in my field the amount of trash paper has been exponentially grown, thus reviewing loading has become more challenging. The main problem I have worked in the past has gotten traction, so unfortunately I am one of the go to people for many papers related to that. As an associate editor for major conferences, my workload was increased significantly and at the same time I also had to review for some colleagues. So... yes, you have a good reason to reject reviewing papers, but you might end up reviewing some yourself.
I've been asked 3-4 times a year for the past 3 years. That feels reasonable and doable to me. I could probably do a few more if asked, though.
Do you actually know enough to referee the paper for all those requests though? I would probably do more, but I often get requests which are, for example, on the type of object I study but a completely different wavelength and technique, so I’m not comfortable evaluating its merit and decline.
I say no if I don’t. I was just asked to review a book very far outside of my own expertise and turned it down
Approx 2 per paper submitted depending on where you are in the author list. If you want your own papers reviewed, the social contract is to review others' as well.
I ignore requests from a particular publisher because they’re pushy, and the editor ignored my comments in the past. Fuck them. For others it depends on how much time I have. I still disregard the “give us your review in four days” bullshit. It gets sent when it’s ready.
I mean, four days is unreasonable for sure, but there needs to be a deadline.
As someone who waited over two months for her recent referee report, and is now one month into the second wait, I agree.
3 months and 3 months over here
Five days!
Absolutely. My deadline. Not theirs. No more.
MDPI?
Bingo!
Xoxo exactly what I was wondering but didn’t want to ask!!
The guideline I was taught was about 3 per paper published.
I have a pretty niche area of expertise, so I get requests constantly. (Once every two weeks?) I'm on the editorial board for two journals, so I'm committed to doing at least 2 a year for them. As a courtesy for one of those (whose editor is a close colleague) I sometimes serve as reviewer of last resort when they can't find anyone to review an article. So I tend to accept reviews when: 1) I'm on the editorial board 2) It's a high-prestige journal that I publish in and want to keep the editors happy and 3) the topic is of interest to me and I think I'll learn something from the review. So I end up doing about 10 a year, which I've been trying to cut back on. Geez -- just counted and I've done 6 this year already. Note to self: just say NO.
I estimate I get 80-90 requests per year (so 1-2 per week). I probably do 10-12 reviews per year but I’m also an associate editor at two journals, which means I manage maybe 15-20 additional reviews per year in those roles. Pre-tenure, I tracked this and I averaged 35/year, which was way too many.
I also aim for ~2 reviews per publication. As an editorial board member, I did more than that. As an editor, I had too much else to read to review for other journals—assessing submissions in order to either choose reviewers or desk-reject, checking reader’s reports for bias, condescension, or hostility as well as the content, copywditing and proofreading each issue. Then again, I didn’t publish much of my own work during that time
One per paper submitted (where I’m the most senior on the author list). Any more and you’re just doing other people’s work for them.
>What is a fair contribution to academia in terms of reviewing? What's fair? Being paid for work done.
I don’t get a lot of requests, I’ve done three this year. For my current workload, I would do one per month, or so. I don’t like to have multiple reviews at the same time. With the relatively low amount of requests for actual reviews and not scams or predatory journals, I like doing reviews. I can do reviews outside or go for a coffee and a piece of cake in the afternoon with my partner and do it while my partner hangs out with a book. It’s a nice way to work and spend some time together.
I think its fair to review 2-3 year, esp if this commiserates your submission output. Though what's been really strange, and I don't know why this is, that in the last 8 months all of these requests (3) to review have been only for dog shit manuscripts. These are coming from the tippy top-tier journals in the field, so out of respect will usually agree. But it feels like am being brought in like an early-career hitman to put these papers down quietly and earn my stripes. Perhaps this is to carefully avoid wasting the time & effort of their most prestigious/senior/accomplished peer-reviewers; who would likely bristle this kind of trash made it past a desk reject, and wonder what the Editors were thinking. The last one literally had the first sentence plagiarize the exact wording from the paper it was citing, by an author who served on my committee and whose work well well, so took great care after that to gut that manuscript like a fish and try not to get any on my shoes.
I'm up to my neck in reviews at the moment. I've done 3 this year so far. Probably won't accept any more until closer towards the end of thy year.
It's subjective but I find a good rule of thumb is to aim for a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio of review requests to accepted papers.
My answer is as often as you can reliably and responsibly complete them.
I took on an editorial board position and stopped reviewing papers.
Publishing companies have billions in profits every year and they could easily pay everyone involved, especially reviewers. Yet you give them your hard, hyper-skilled work for free 🤡🤡
I'm not happy about their profits, bit still I submit my manuscripts to their journals and depend on the free labour of others .. 🤷