Institut für Therapie- und Gesundheitsforschung (Institute for Therapy and Health Research)
What is the benefit of being a peer-reviewer?
Is there any benefit of reviewing papers for journals? As a graduate student, I have been privileged to review some papers. While some journals acknowledge peer reviewers by publishing their names annually, others do not. Do you think reviewing papers has any advantage (not in monetary terms) to the reviewer? What have you benefited from reviewing papers? Kindly share with it.
Peer reviewing helps you to become a better writer, and perhaps ultimately a more successful published author. All this work is evidence of your standing and contributions in your field, which can boost your CV and help you get ahead. Most importantly, peer review improves research.
1. Reviewing other papers in your field is a critical thinking process that may provide new insights about your own work.
2. In the United States, at least, performing peer review is considered to be "service to profession" and therefore can be part of a promotion portfolio.
When you complete and submit your review, the journal should send you an email acknowledging your work, which serves as your documentation.
I would also say that I have been successful with several journal publications of my own, so when I perform peer review, I think of myself in a mentoring role. This may not be a direct benefit, but I see peer review as helping other scholars to succeed, so it does make me feel good.
Your question is complex, then I make option by the specific subdivision approaching each part with proper importance in my context.
“Is there any benefit of reviewing papers for journals?”
There is a set of benefits in the reviewing of papers. But benefits depending on the experience and specific stage of carrier of the reviewer. During a long development of its carrier, a reviewer undergoes a continuous maturation with direct impact at aspects intellectual, ethical, analytical and professional. As a whole, the enhancement and improvement of so relevant set of features providing the professional evolution, with reflex at around. While I am a reviewer of several papers all moths, several papers developed by me and mine team are reviewed also. Typically, youngers reviewers are focused on error starting from English language, formula, signal of a formula, absence of a classical reference, error bar. Sometimes, the inexperienced reviewer desires in an unconscious manner rewrite the paper. Well, I think that the approach mentioned is in fact non useful to the editor. With years, I think that the major focus is in the set of right and identification of contributions from small one to giant one. Here, is necessary the definition of reviewer; that not have the objective of generating any kind of controversy. Any another can be useful.
- The reviewer is the faithful representative of the journal Editor being assigned to the one a set of relevant tasks; perhaps the most important is the non-judge of the paper since he is not a kind attorney/judge. Instead, should prospect scientific and technological contributions call of pros providing its comprehensive listing and its support item by item from manuscript.
Seems that, the further strategy that can to avoid some kind of excess by reviewers has been applied by some journal Editors. The first step is to transform the associate editor in an extremely functional peace of journal. The view of associate editor is fundamental. Two external reviewers should compose the review-report. It is very important, that each reviewer can be see another reviews. It is not necessary complete accordance with all item, but is expected some coherence about a kind of thinking-line.
“As a graduate student, I have been privileged to review some papers. While some journals acknowledge peer reviewers by publishing their names annually, others do not.”
Despite that non necessary, really, is relatively common, some PhD advices re-pass some material under reviewing but this an officious question and from official is difficult to approach. Then, as exhibiting proofed actuation and recognized actuating in specific area, a graduate student can be nominated directly by Editor as reviewer, as above mentioned. The revision process is a priori an anonymous event, but really is not necessary after one year of production of journal further preserving of names of external reviewers.
"Do you think reviewing papers has any advantage (not in monetary terms) to the reviewer?"
The major set of advantages is abstract in essence being difficult to address the heart of the matter. Seems almost impossible to measure “…aspects intellectual, ethical, analytical and professional.”, as mentioned and first answer part. Depending on the affiliation institution, provide further assistance to Editors journals demand a great effort. Here, in the Sao Paulo State University, at present semester, I specifically am teaching three disciplines at undergraduate courses and two disciplines for graduate course.
"What have you benefited from reviewing papers? Kindly share with it."
Recently, in my action area, I have learned in first hand that there is in operation a deep transformation in the production of knowledge. To the previous item, can be added more complex another. But also is obvious that a researcher that receive 20, 30 or more papers to provide some kind of paper review, a priori have conditions to influence the development of are of specific- knowledge; this is not good.
More recently, some couple of years ago, here at Sao Paulo State University, the professional performance of each member starts to be valued in a period of three years. One time by year, all should provide further filling in a form of a spreadsheet called of assessment-spreadsheet; after each three years an average is derived stemming this score a minimum value ascribed to a recommended level.
In this assessment-spreadsheet there are four macro areas, each one representing an area in which the professor can actuate in the university: Teaching; Administration, Extension to the Community and Research. Each one of these areas exhibit a wide set of sub-item relevant specifically. In this sense, at item Research there is a sub-item review of papers. Each one should be report the number of reviews carried out, each review have a specific value, all values are added to final result; this result is computed up to a specific limit. All item of spreadsheet are added. There is minimum value to be reached. Each time (period), that minimum score is not reached, there is some kind of advertence, after three, one administrative process can be open with objective of apply an administrative-sanction, with direct impact under the carrier and salary. Here, therefore, there is a real benefit for reviewing of papers, is minimum the gain but exist in practical terms.
Science and Academic journals never offer you with monetary benefits for reviewing the paper.
On the other hand, you will have the following advantages:
(1) If you receive an invitation to be a reviewer, that means, you are considered as an expert in your field. It is an honor for you.
(2) Editorial board of any journals consists of senior professors and well known scientists in the respective fields.
As a good reviewer you will have a chance to get recognized by those editorial board members.
This will also serve as an advantage for you when you apply for grants or for academic jobs.
(3) You can include reviewer experience in your CV/resume.
(4) By reviewing several papers in your field you will be growing professionally by updating your knowledge and expertise within the field.
(5) You are enforced to read carefully various manuscripts in your area of importance and interest.
This is the way you are routinely forced to keep yourself up-to-date while checking and suggesting the changes in manuscript.
(6) This work helps to add in and provides a better way to create your identity as a well known expert in your field and may lead to increased invitations to speak at conferences or demand for invited research of your specialized area.
(7) You will be among the contributors who will shape and decide the urgent ways as required with changing societal needs.
(8) Your ideas and subject inputs may help in arranging special issues as per topics of your interest and choice.
(9) You will come across the latest research before everyone else and gives you a position of leadership in your research community.
Institut für Therapie- und Gesundheitsforschung (Institute for Therapy and Health Research)
Thanks Dr Marković for pointing out the issue of professional positions. The benefits of peer reviewing are numerous. There are latent and manifest benefits. I asked this question before I had my PhD viva. The knowledge I gained from peer reviewing papers and having mine peer reviewed by others helped me when I was defending my doctoral thesis.
The experience is enriching and of course other benefits come into the picture like promotion. By reviewing, we sensitise ourselves to the positive and negative elements as well and this serves as a yardstick when we write academic papers as well.
Institut für Therapie- und Gesundheitsforschung (Institute for Therapy and Health Research)
This is getting more interesting. Many thanks for your contributions to this question. I learnt that some organizations/publishers pay reviewers who for reviews. Some Open Access publishers give discounts to peer reviewers who subsequently submit their research to the publisher's journal. This is seemingly a benefit.
At least you obligated to read and to find if this this work mode or useful or not. And this is helping to though your work because you can be reviwer for the work u r specialized in.. so I think it. Has some scientific useful benefits.
I think that the main benefit of being peer-reviewer is to be judger of the work of others. This is a source of secure complications for the judger if s/he does not have real ability to judge or to do a good paper in her/his review activity.
YES, Dr. Nguyễn Thanh Lâm, some publishers offer economic benefits for reviewers. Taylor and Francis offer 30 days complimentary access to all journals via Online and a 30% discount on Taylor and Francis Group books. Although it does not give any financial benefits , the other tangible benefits are considerable. I agree with Michael W. Marek, Leonid V Vladimirov. Thanks
In a previous answer, item 6, Dr. Han Ping Fung makes mention the Publons.
Nowadays, the PUBLONS clarify the work of a reviewer and help the evolution of revision work preocess. Recent advantage to be a reviewer can be finding in the bottom of text. In the Publons, a broad set of information is given to public, see as an example:
Really, the reviewing can be monitored almost weekly. All reviewers can to affiliate to Publons.
From affiliation to PUBLONS, further profile will be created; you can to get credit for reviewing a manuscript on Publons.
Publons provides verified credit for peer review, without compromising you anonymity or infringing any journal policies stated. The review per si will not be published. In fact, the year of the review and the Journal title will be show on your profile. All information at about reviewing can be added to ORCID Profile of the reviewer. Furthermore, any another review carried out can be up graded in automatic way to ORCID.
In addition, to affiliates, several texts, films, interviews and kind courses are available in the site to understand advantages and benefits of filiation and be a reviewer. As an example:
New jobs and fellowships
Funding and grant applications (individual and institutional)
Reviewing is an important part of the development of science and thus humanity. It generally enriches the subject and both the author and the reviewer. Cumulative reviewing is a cumulative expertise. The process triggers discussion and exchange of views that has a deepening effect on the understanding of the particular, in principle new subject of the review.
I may suggest using PUBLONS (https://publons.com/home/) and it is one of the best professional ways to keep track of your contributions as a reviewer and obviously it is an easiest and most trusted way to show your records of your reviewing activity. You can share the link of your Publons profile in your CV instead of writing the reviewing detail. Also you can monitor some of the key points mentioned below by using the stats option in your dashboard page in the PUBLONS.
· The distribution of the Journal Impact factors of journals you have reviewed.
· A cumulative record of the total number of your reviews.
I have peer reviewing as soon as I started to study anything at school or in a new job. I always look to understand what others in my profession do or at the next level up or below to understand how my research benefits others and make it slightly different. This will help you to differentiate your work and be a better researcher. Whilst research is me-search your career is limited when there is no benefit to others. It also helps your communication skill training to learn about phrasing from more experienced or skilled writers. So apart from time it takes away from others there are only benefits for you personally to conduct peer review.
Dear Dr. Emeka W. Dumbili , it is really an interesting issue.
The most important benefit is contributing to a system that you also use. When you submit your own paper, you rely on other referees to critique it in order for it to be published in a peer reviewed journal. Peer reviewed journal articles are the major deliverables of scientific research, and they are necessary to progress in one’s career and demonstrate that your future research is worth funding.
Other than that, secondary benefits include:
Being able to constructively improve the published scientific literature
Learning about topics which are outside your immediate research area
Learning how to be critical of your own work and write papers for a critical audience
First, in order to be a referee and reviewer in a subject, one must be expert and competent in that subject. So, when you are invited to serve as reviewer, it means there are sufficient evidence revealing your competency. In this way, it is a kind of scientific prestige.
Moreover, there might be benefits for promotions in workplace, such as for academic people as well as for research scientists in industry. This benefit is mainly for those who are employed, but not all reviewers enjoy employment and having a secure and regular job.
The other benefit is having a chance to read first-hand scientific manuscripts before being published and make formal judgment about them.
Many people in science community enjoy serving the community without expecting any compensation. The review service is a kind of such volunteer service that mentally makes the reviewer happy.
Although I am using an online thesaurus each time I write to find the appropriate word to express an idea, there are words that appear to be inappropriate or unclear in some instances. Getting feedback from colleagues help me decide if indeed I have to stick to my terms or adopt what they suggest. If the suggestion sounds good, I don’t hesitate changing terms in question.
2. Provides feedback as to the effectiveness of your communication
Well, that’s it. You can easily see from your peer group’s reactions if they understood the points you advanced in your manuscript. If it takes them a while than usual once a page has been displayed for them to provide their feedback, that could probably mean that there’s something wrong in the flow of thought or discussion. Clarifying questions will most likely come next. And yes, they do.
3. Allows you to see other people’s perspectives on issues raised
Seeing other people’s perspectives is a very valuable contribution to your research manuscript. It is here that you will realize that you do not monopolize good ideas. There may be better, sound ideas out there that can make your writing great. You will then be able to get yourself out of your personal biases and think beyond the box.
4. Prevents you from committing serious blunders in your arguments
You may have raised points that may be founded on wrong assumptions. Once the assumptions are wrong, then all you have written is essentially wrong. This just follows the rules of logic. If your premises are wrong, then everything that goes after it is unreliable.
5. Gives confidence and assurance
More heads is better than one so they say. Once you have gone through a battery of questions and critical comments, and you are able to fend them off or address them adequately, you will then feel more confident. It builds self-esteem, allay fears of rejection and boost your assurance of knowledge known.
6. Facilitates concise writing
You may have written more than what is necessary. Removing unnecessary paragraphs or sentences here and there gives rise to a concise, professionally written manuscript.
7. Allows you to expound on your points
You may have thought you have written enough to explain the matter at hand. Then you realize your peers were taken halfway the intended ideas you want to project. This requires expounding on the issues you have raised for greater understanding and/or clarity of ideas. Some authors gets information to make their work superb through peer review process.
8. Confirms your observations
If you have gone together in the field, your colleague can confirm or refute your observation. This validates your findings.
9. Encourages you to perform better next time
If the exercise has shown you some good feedback, you will be on guard on the likely comments, suggestions or criticism on your manuscript the next time around. You are then able to write better than before as you integrate all the comments and suggestions thus avoid committing the same mistakes.
One of the advantages is that, you get to know more in your field. Also publishing quality papers by you become much easier because of the experiences you would have gathered from the reviews. It also boosts your CV particularly when applying for grants in your field
A lot of positive contributions have been added to this valuable question. It is a fulfiling obligation to know that you have contributed to the publications in the top journals, you just feel good. Some journals awards certificates. You also get sharp academically.
Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and Technology
Peer reviewing activity is a great tutor that assists reviewers to be abreast with current trends in their research field.
It is an avenue whereby giving our quality time in scratching the backs of other researchers to produce quality scientific papers, our skills are also 'scratched' to be more knowledgeable in the scientific processes.
I have personally benefitted greatly in my professional development as a scholar via engaging in the peer reviewing activity.
Benefits to all from solid peer review: (1) better journals, (2) better journal articles, (3) better scientific arguments, (4) better styles of writing, (5) better scientific theory development . .. hopefully if the world of science has access to--solidly committed, self-less, and articulate, dedicated to the clarification of science as it develops--astute peer reviewers.
National Research University Higher School of Economics
The greatest benefit is not expanding your ego but benchmarking your views on particular problems, research techniques and writing styles with those of your colleague. A single review has no personal value, it just consumes your time, energy and brain efforts. But comparing your review with other reviews on the same paper (not necessarily in a journal, but, for example, in AoM Annual conference) shows a lot about your personal differences in perception of scientific texts. Some differences indicate your strengths, some differences indicate your weaknesses, but in general you learn a lot from your brother|sister reviews. So why I regularly perform reviews for two groups of AoM, for SMS and for a dozen of journals.