Value your time.

I turn down far more journal review requests than I take on, probably about 6:1.
I've reviewed about 12–15 papers in total and that has been more than enough.

The numbers don't tell the story, though.
I use non-numeric principles to decide whether to review.

When I get a review request, I read the title and abstract, then:

• If the manuscript is outside my area of expertise, I decline to review.
• If the manuscript is an obviously flawed study in a field I care about, I accept the review so I can help police the field.
• If the manuscript is an obviously flawed study in a field full of obviously flawed studies, I decline to review; it isn't my job to mop a swamp.
• If the manuscript is very interesting to me or particularly relevant to my own research, I accept the review.
• If the manuscript is something I could review, but it doesn't excite me, I tend to decline to review.
• If I'm on the fence, I will look up the journal on SciMago. If the journal is a low-tier journal, I will probably decline to review; if it is a high-tier journal, I may accept the review.

The more I review, the more I decline to review.
I accepted more review requests when I was first starting to review, but I take fewer and fewer as I continue in my career. Reviewing is a skill, the development of which requires practice. However, having reviewed several papers, I have developed that skill and no longer require additional practice. The incremental value-add for reviewing each additional paper decreases. I have reached a point where the value-add to me is almost nothing unless I am genuinely interested in the contents of the manuscript.

Reviewing papers is exploitative of the time of the reviewers.
The publishing companies behind journals make massive profits and provide very little utility. Authors freely submit their manuscripts, only to have universities buy access! You are not paid to review, but your university library pays to get access to peer reviewed articles. Most research was funded by taxpayers, but gets put behind paywalls. Publishers have created a system that exploits authors, editors, reviewers, and the general public. You do not owe them a moment of your time.

I encourage you to ask yourself "Why am I reviewing?"
Think about your top three reasons. Think about whether you value those reasons or whether those reasons were told to you by someone else, e.g. "reviewing is the duty of a scientist". Remember: "duty" is how people with authority justify their actions to people they are about to exploit! Protect your time.

Reviewing during a PhD can be a great way to learn more about the review process.
You get to see "the other side". You get into the head of a reviewer by becoming a reviewer. However, don't let reviewing make you lose sight of your goals or your appreciation of your time, including free time!

Index

Return to Reviewing papers

Jump to How to review a paper