How long is too long in contemporary peer review?

An optimal range for peer review durations were 1–20 weeks with majority falling within eight weeks or under (86% of 366 responses).

How long should my peer review be?

Delayed response from reviewers. Unhelpful review reports – reviews that are a single sentence or paragraph are unhelpful to authors or editors. A normal review report should be two to three pages in length, sometimes longer. (Read how to write a review report.)

How long is too long in contemporary peer review perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals?

Synthesis. Our findings show that the peer-review process within conservation biology is perceived by authors to be slow (14 weeks), and turnaround times that are over double the length of what they perceive as “optimal” (6 weeks).

Why is peer review taking so long?

In the majority of cases, the invited reviewers are able to respond within a few days. However, reviewers are incredibly busy – they often have research, teaching and writing responsibilities not to mention other reviews (and that's before even thinking about a work-life balance).

How much time is spent on peer review?

Short answer: It takes up to about 3 months (studies have shown peer review typically takes 7–12 weeks), but there are a lot of variables to take into account. These include the journal's internal processes and publication frequency, availability of peer reviewers, and other things out of your control.

How Long Does The Peer-Review Take | Why Does Peer Review Take So Long

How many hours does a peer reviewer spend reviewing a paper?

The length of time it takes to review depends on the paper, your availability, and your experience of reviewing. On average, reviewing a full-length journal article can take 2-5 hours.

What is the most appropriate of a peer review process?

Peer review is the independent assessment of your research paper by experts in your field. The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the paper's quality and suitability for publication. As well as peer review acting as a form of quality control for academic journals, it is a very useful source of feedback for you.

How can I speed up my peer review?

Recommend potential reviewers: Finding qualified reviewers can be one of the most time-consuming stages of the peer review process. Providing 3 to 5 reviewer recommendations may help reduce the Editor's time spent on finding qualified researchers to evaluate your manuscript.

How can I speed up my peer review process?

Choose the right journal: Selecting an appropriate journal that aligns with your research topic and scope can increase the chances of a faster review process. Some journals are known for their quicker turnaround times compared to others. Research the average review times and select journals accordingly.

Is peer review in crisis?

As long as we continue to chug within the current system, we will continue to have a problem with peer review. There are too many journals. This structural problem is not as often recognized and discussed, but we just keep on birthing journals.

How hard is it to get published in a peer-reviewed journal?

Writing a paper for publication in a peer-reviewed journal is a rewarding experience but a very difficult undertaking that requires years of experience, determination and patience.

How many manuscripts should I peer review per year?

Reviewing three manuscripts per article published is not a hard job, but reviewing 15 manuscripts per article published, which could result in 75 reviews a year if you publish five articles, may be overwhelming.

What is the maximum length of a review article?

For a Review Article, the target length is 4,000–5,000 words, plus notes. For a Viewpoint piece, we are flexible in relation to length, but our preference is for Viewpoints to be shorter than articles: we suggest 6,000 words (plus notes) as a rough guide.

What is the golden rule of peer review?

Journals have no way to coerce reviewers to return their critiques faster. To greatly shorten the time to publication, all actors in this altruistic network should abide by the Golden Rule of Reviewing: review for others as you would have others review for you.

What not to do in a peer review?

Reviews should not call the authors' qualifications into question. Instead, reviewers should elaborate on where the science or writing is lacking. Reviews should be unbiased, respectful, and constructive. Personal attacks that call an author's character into question should never be included in a peer review.

How many papers are rejected after peer review?

Studies indicate that 21% of papers are rejected without review, and approximately 40% of papers are rejected after peer review. If your paper has been rejected prior to peer review due to lack of subject fit, then find a new journal to submit your work to and move on.

What are the 7 peer review tips?

How do you deal with a bad peer review?

Respond to each comment – even if you disagree

Sometimes even a subtle change to the paper can show that you've considered the reviewer's suggestions, says Shapiro. If you don't agree with their critiques, take the time to justify why – respectfully.

Why is peer review difficult?

They will sometimes miss critical information in a paper or have personal biases when reviewing, causing dubious research to sometimes be published. Furthermore, another study shows that there may be a bias in favor of the institutions that the reviewers themselves are affiliated with.

Can peer review reject?

Inadequate data often leads to manuscript rejection during the peer review process, as it indicates that the data collected doesn't convincingly support the conclusions.

What makes a peer review strong?

Peer review should be comprehensive, succinct, and accurate, and comment on the importance, novelty, and impact of the study. It is helpful to give constructive feedback to their colleagues since respectful comments are the key to a good peer review.

What makes a good or bad peer review?

Your review should always be polite; it is unprofessional to use derogatory language or take a harsh or sarcastic tone (and remember that even if reviewer names are blinded to authors, the Editor knows who you are…). Write the review in a tone you would be happy to receive.

What is a blind peer review?

Definition of single-blind peer review

Single-blind peer review is the traditional method of review. In it, reviewers know the identity of authors, but authors don't know the identity of reviewers. (In double-blind review, neither reviewers nor authors know who the other party is.

What are the 5 key elements of peer review?

Faith, or F.A.I.T.H. in peer review depends on five core attributes: fairness in reviewing; appropriate expertise, iden- tifiable reviewers, timely reviews; and helpful critiques.

What are the 3 kinds of peer review?

The three most common types of peer review are single-anonymized, double-anonymized, and open peer review.