Peer review experiences of academic chemists in Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States

Abstract

Academic chemists at Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States were surveyed on the time and effort they spend on peer reviews and how they rate themselves as reviewers. Thirty percent of the respondents reviewed 16 or more papers yearly. This seemingly high number is consistent with the number of papers some scientists publish, and the rough estimate of two to three reviews is obtained per manuscript submission. Approximately 30% of the respondents reported that they spent two hours or less per review; that 60% rate themselves as strong or very strong reviewers; that the youngest reviewers are more likely to be compulsive in their reviewing; and that respondents who spend more time on reviews complete fewer reviews per year. Sixty percent of the respondents categorized themselves as strong or very strong reviewers, suggesting that most scientists see reviewing papers as an essential component of their professional responsibilities. These ratings suggest an opportunity to improve peer review quality. Good citizenship within the scientific community suggests that each scientist should review ca. two to three times as many papers each year as they submit, and that reviewers need to see reviewing as "providing to others what authors hope reviewers will provide to them."

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.