Now on ScienceBlogs: The Lights Stay On Inside a Black Hole!

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

Search

rss.jpg   Subscribe to RSS feed

Profile

davidog.pngDave Bacon is a theoretical ski bum who is also a pseudo professor. His research is on quantum computing, his scientific passions extend to everything in physics, mathematics, computer science and beyond, and his personal pleasures include making wine, playing poker, skiing, camping, and daydreaming (although not all of those at the same time.) Nothing he says on this blog should be construed as having anything to do with his employer or his dog.


Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Other Information

The use of Occam's razor on this website is strickly prohibited.

Cows are well approximated by a sphere.
rss.jpg   Subscribe to RSS feed

« Book Reviews | Main | Quantum Open Notebook »

Paper Reviewing Ratio

Category: The Loony Bin Called Academia
Posted on: February 2, 2009 10:33 PM, by Dave Bacon

Share:

A long time ago, in a blog far far away, I ran a small poll about paper refereeing. The poll asked "What is your ratio of reviewed to submitted manuscripts?". The results were

  • >=6 reviewed for every 1 submitted: 7 votes (8 percent)
  • 5 reviewed for every 1 submitted: 3 votes (4 percent)
  • 4 reviewed for every 1 submitted: 9 votes (10 percent)
  • 3 reviewed for every 1 submitted: 12 votes (14 percent)
  • 2 reviewed for every 1 submitted: 13 votes (15 percent)
  • 1 reviewed for every 1 submitted: 20 votes (24 percent)
  • 1 reviewed for every 2 submitted: 6 votes (7 percent)
  • 1 reviewed for every 3 submitted: 5 votes (6 percent)
  • 1 reviewed for every 4 submitted: 2 votes (2 percent)
  • 1 reviewed for every 5 submitted: 0 votes (0 percent)
  • 1 reviewed for every >=6 submitted: 7 votes (8 percent)
This works out to an average 2.2 papers reviewed for every one submitted.

But the question I didn't ask is what should your ratio of reviewed (refereed) to submitted be?

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/93972

Comments

1

I think, the way the question is worded, it is too open to interpretation. For instance, an eminent physicist near the end of his or her career might not be publishing much anymore, but might enjoy reviewing and thus would expect his or her ratio to be weighted toward reviewing. On the other hand, someone at the beginning of their career might be spitting out papers left and right but, until they're recognized, might have not been asked yet to review many papers and would fully expect that and thus would be inclined to answer with a ratio weighted toward submissions.

Posted by: Ian Durham | February 3, 2009 12:31 PM

2

The answer to this question depends heavily on what you mean by "submitted". If you count only first author papers, then the answer is "3", since each paper should have 3 reviewers. However, if you count all papers, then it'll depend on the number of authors on your papers. Assuming everyone follows the same strategy, you should review 3/N papers for each N-author paper you co-author.

I'd consider going higher to make up for all the slackers out there. :)

Posted by: Michael Leuchtenburg | February 3, 2009 2:02 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM