In the future, my reviews will consist solely of one carefully picked emoji

9 thoughts on “In the future, my reviews will consist solely of one carefully picked emoji”

  1. I take ~2 hours. The first half hour is spent thinking, “Yep, pretty good” and then increasing despair and how horrible it actually is. I don’t think I’ve suggested accepting a paper yet this year. I review 1 paper every two months, and accept 25% of the the requests to review. I am almost always sent papers that use genotyping by sequencing.

  2. (i) how long it takes you to review a paper: between 2-4 hours

    (ii) how many requests to review manuscripts you get: 5-10/year

    (iii) what fraction of requests to review you accept: about 50%

    (iv) what field you’re in: medieval hispanic literature/culture

    1. This is very interesting (see also Eric’s comment below). I had no real sense of what’s involved in Humanities article review. I’m surprised how similar all your numbers are to the others, at least roughly. There’s a paper waiting to be written on Universal Laws of Article Review. (But who would review it?)

  3. (i) how long it takes you to review a paper: about 3-4 hours

    (ii) how many requests to review manuscripts you get: about 2 per month (24 per year)

    (iii) what fraction of requests to review you accept: 90%…..I have a hard time saying no. Don’t tell the editors this!

    (iv) what field you’re in: Biological Physics

  4. (i) ~4 hours (separated into first read and second read, at least a day apart) (large standard deviation, definitely not a normal distribution)

    (ii) ~8 / year but sadly peak around the same time as other demanding tasks.

    (iii) ~50% – I limit my reviewing activities per month, so when I’ve got lots of grants to review, or a thesis to read, then I decline. Also, I have decided only to say yes to papers for which I am likely to learn something of direct relevance to my own research. That way, I ensure that I am capable of and interested in doing a very thorough job.

    (iv) Biophysics.

    1. Yes, I’m more likely to say yes to papers that I think I’ll learn something from — especially ones that force me to read the literature in areas I’m deficient in. Of course, if this holds in general I suppose it implies that papers are most likely to be reviewed by reviewers who aren’t quite experts in the subject!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s