Paper Reviewing Ratio

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?

More like this

Go to the bottom of the post to see my recommended methods for cooking rice. This week, I resolved that for the new year I would start blogging more frequently. Given that I really haven't been blogging at all recently, that shouldn't be too hard. I won't bore you with the various reasons why…
AOL is running several polls on Bush's recent statements — they seem more shocked by the fact that he didn't believe the bible was literally true than that he doubted evolution. Anyway, have fun, but keep in mind that these are polls that are heavily trafficked so we probably won't make that big a…
Photo credit: Robert Hanashiro, USA TODAY It is the norm today to discuss race as a social construct. Less fashionable is it to explore race as a biological concept. When there's no up or downside and the discussion is abstract I think most people can get away with benign neglect in regards to…
If you don't know who Mary Rosh is, you might want to read "The Mystery of Mary Rosh". Also of interest might be the blog post that unmasked Mary, and the latest Mary Rosh news. [Editor's note: Most of these postings were made to Usenet. Some were made to comment sections on blogs, two are…

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.

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. :)

By Michael Leuchtenburg (not verified) on 03 Feb 2009 #permalink