Now on ScienceBlogs: Oh, no! School wi-fi is making our kids sick! (2012 edition)

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Search

rss.jpg   Subscribe to RSS feed

Follow dabacon on Twitter

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

Follow dabacon on Twitter

« 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 on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook
Find more posts in: Education & Careers

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

Comments have been closed as this blog has moved to http://dabacon.org/pontiff.
Click here to search for this post on the new blog.

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.