Oct 09 2014 Published by odyssey under Careers, Life
This just came out:
The scientists who get credit for peer review.
Anyone else find the number of reviews per year done by the one scientist just a bit worrying?
6 responses so far
That is a lot of reviews. At 12 hrs a pop for the decent ones and 3 h minimum? Sheesh.
You have to wonder what the various editors involved are thinking when they send so much his way. Even if he's the world's greatest reviewer in terms of rigor and fairness, the level of influence he's been handed is beyond belief.
It also shows that the whole premise of publons is flawed, in my opinion. Clearly the editors are selecting him on the basis of his performance as a reviewer, not because he is the handpicked best possible expert in the field.
Editors are looking at stats for reliably saying yes and submitting on time. I presume.
One would hope they're looking beyond just those stats.
100 manuscripts per year!?!?!?!?!? That is sheer lunacy. BTW, if you are spending 12 fucken hours to review a manuscript, you are doing it wrong. I don't see it as my jobbe to copy edit and make sure that references to figures, etc, are correct, although if I do happen to notice something, I'll mention it. My jobbe is to determine two things: (1) whether the conclusions of the manuscript are interesting enough to merit publication in the journal considering the paper and (2) whether those conclusions are sufficiently suppported by the presented data.
BTW, my post-doc mentor was the exact opposite. She would mark up papers she reviewed as if they were the work of her own trainees coming out of her own lab, and it took her a full fucken day to review a paper. Ridiculous.
Site Admin | Theme by Niyaz
Pondering Blather Copyright © 2017 All Rights Reserved