IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v8y2020i1p4-d311137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Many Papers Should Scientists Be Reviewing? An Analysis Using Verified Peer Review Reports

Author

Listed:
  • Vincent Raoult

    (School of Environment and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Ourimbah, NSW 2258, Australia)

Abstract

The current peer review system is under stress from ever increasing numbers of publications, the proliferation of open-access journals and an apparent difficulty in obtaining high-quality reviews in due time. At its core, this issue may be caused by scientists insufficiently prioritising reviewing. Perhaps this low prioritisation is due to a lack of understanding on how many reviews need to be conducted by researchers to balance the peer review process. I obtained verified peer review data from 142 journals across 12 research fields, for a total of over 300,000 reviews and over 100,000 publications, to determine an estimate of the numbers of reviews required per publication per field. I then used this value in relation to the mean numbers of authors per publication per field to highlight a ‘review ratio’: the expected minimum number of publications an author in their field should review to balance their input (publications) into the peer review process. On average, 3.49 ± 1.45 (SD) reviews were required for each scientific publication, and the estimated review ratio across all fields was 0.74 ± 0.46 (SD) reviews per paper published per author. Since these are conservative estimates, I recommend scientists aim to conduct at least one review per publication they produce. This should ensure that the peer review system continues to function as intended.

Suggested Citation

  • Vincent Raoult, 2020. "How Many Papers Should Scientists Be Reviewing? An Analysis Using Verified Peer Review Reports," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:8:y:2020:i:1:p:4-:d:311137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/8/1/4/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/8/1/4/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarvenaz Sarabipour & Humberto J Debat & Edward Emmott & Steven J Burgess & Benjamin Schwessinger & Zach Hensel, 2019. "On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Imad A. Moosa, 2018. "Publish or Perish," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 17542.
    3. Aria, Massimo & Cuccurullo, Corrado, 2017. "bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 959-975.
    4. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz, 2015. "Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(11), pages 2215-2222, November.
    5. Martijn Arns, 2014. "Open access is tiring out peer reviewers," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7528), pages 467-467, November.
    6. Vivian M Nguyen & Neal R Haddaway & Lee F G Gutowsky & Alexander D M Wilson & Austin J Gallagher & Michael R Donaldson & Neil Hammerschlag & Steven J Cooke, 2015. "How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carol Nash, 2023. "Roles and Responsibilities for Peer Reviewers of International Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-24, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrej Kastrin & Dimitar Hristovski, 2021. "Scientometric analysis and knowledge mapping of literature-based discovery (1986–2020)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1415-1451, February.
    2. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    3. Mariana Reis Maria & Rosangela Ballini & Roney Fraga Souza, 2023. "Evolution of Green Finance: A Bibliometric Analysis through Complex Networks and Machine Learning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-23, January.
    4. Zabavnik, Darja & Verbič, Miroslav, 2021. "Relationship between the financial and the real economy: A bibliometric analysis," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 55-75.
    5. Ali Namaki & Reza Eyvazloo & Shahin Ramtinnia, 2023. "A systematic review of early warning systems in finance," Papers 2310.00490, arXiv.org.
    6. Tosi, Mauro Dalle Lucca & dos Reis, Julio Cesar, 2021. "SciKGraph: A knowledge graph approach to structure a scientific field," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    7. Cristina Mele & Jaqueline Pels & Maria Spano & Irene Bernardo, 2023. "Emergent understandings of the market," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2023(1), pages 1-25, March.
    8. Fosso Wamba, Samuel & Bawack, Ransome Epie & Guthrie, Cameron & Queiroz, Maciel M. & Carillo, Kevin Daniel André, 2021. "Are we preparing for a good AI society? A bibliometric review and research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    9. Maciej J. Mrowinski & Agata Fronczak & Piotr Fronczak & Olgica Nedic & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2020. "The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 115-133, October.
    10. Merve Anaç & Gulden Gumusburun Ayalp & Kamil Erdayandi, 2023. "Prefabricated Construction Risks: A Holistic Exploration through Advanced Bibliometric Tool and Content Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-31, August.
    11. Quan-Hoang Vuong & Huyen Thanh T. Nguyen & Thanh-Hang Pham & Manh-Toan Ho & Minh-Hoang Nguyen, 2021. "Assessing the ideological homogeneity in entrepreneurial finance research by highly cited publications," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    12. Shuangqing Sheng & Wei Song & Hua Lian & Lei Ning, 2022. "Review of Urban Land Management Based on Bibliometrics," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-25, November.
    13. Maksym Obrizan, 2018. "Economists in Ukraine: who are they and where do they publish?," Working Papers 3181, Research Consulting and Development.
    14. Hongxia Jin & Lu Lu & Haojun Fan, 2022. "Global Trends and Research Hotspots in Long COVID: A Bibliometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-14, March.
    15. Zoltán Lakner & Brigitta Plasek & Gyula Kasza & Anna Kiss & Sándor Soós & Ágoston Temesi, 2021. "Towards Understanding the Food Consumer Behavior–Food Safety–Sustainability Triangle: A Bibliometric Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, November.
    16. Ying Liang & Wei Song, 2022. "Ecological and Environmental Effects of Land Use and Cover Changes on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau: A Bibliometric Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-23, November.
    17. Lanzalonga Federico & Chmet Federico & Petrolo Basilio & Brescia Valerio, 2023. "Exploring Diversity Management to Avoid Social Washing and Pinkwashing: Using Bibliometric Analysis to Shape Future Research Directions," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 15(1), pages 41-65, March.
    18. Jussi T. S. Heikkila, 2020. "Classifying economics for the common good: Connecting sustainable development goals to JEL codes," Papers 2004.04384, arXiv.org.
    19. Wirapong Chansanam & Chunqiu Li, 2022. "Scientometrics of Poverty Research for Sustainability Development: Trend Analysis of the 1964–2022 Data through Scopus," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    20. Zhichao Wang & Valentin Zelenyuk, 2021. "Performance Analysis of Hospitals in Australia and its Peers: A Systematic Review," CEPA Working Papers Series WP012021, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:8:y:2020:i:1:p:4-:d:311137. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.