Reviewing #3--Why should I review papers?
Let's face it, reviewing even short papers is time consuming, and time is at a premium. There is little reward.
Reviewing can have a direct impact on your career in only two instances I can think of. One is, if you're going up for tenure and have reviewed papers for major journals and still managed to excel in other respects, that's a feather in your cap. Being invited to review papers for major journals early in your career looks good on the CV (or resume). After all, it may mean someone outside your university knows who you are and respects you (or someone inside your university recommended you--either way, it's good). The other instance is after tenure. If your CV does not show that you have done any reviewing, it can be a bit negative because of the expectation that you should be using your expertise to give back to the community.
But those impacts are low. No one is denied tenure or further promotion and pay raises because they didn't do any reviewing. The reviewing duties (or lack thereof) merely contribute to the overall impression of one's success (or lack thereof).
The benefits of reviewing are, therefore, intangible. But they are not insignificant. One of the best reasons for reviewing is you get to see the latest work before it even becomes the latest work. That helps you stay on top of your field in ways you may not appreciate immediately. You get to see players you haven't been aware of and directions your field might be going in that previously were unknown to you.
Very importantly, you learn more about how to--or not to--write. There is nothing like struggling with someone else's unclear explanations and weak arguments to help you avoid committing those errors yourself.
You become known. Sometimes editors invite you to review, not because they know you (I don't know most of the people I ask to review), but because your name popped up in a database or you were recommended. If you do a good job, the editors may remember you. Yes, the downside is they may ask you to review again, but the upside is they will now know who you are. You never know when or how that might pay off. Don't forget most editors are senior scientists.
Finally--and I know this is the weakest argument of all but important nevertheless--if everyone stopped reviewing, there would be no or little quality control on what gets published. No one has enough time. The faithful reviewers would gradually become so overloaded they would give up, and then editors would give up because trying to find reviewers would become more and more difficult. The entire system would collapse.
Reviewing can have a direct impact on your career in only two instances I can think of. One is, if you're going up for tenure and have reviewed papers for major journals and still managed to excel in other respects, that's a feather in your cap. Being invited to review papers for major journals early in your career looks good on the CV (or resume). After all, it may mean someone outside your university knows who you are and respects you (or someone inside your university recommended you--either way, it's good). The other instance is after tenure. If your CV does not show that you have done any reviewing, it can be a bit negative because of the expectation that you should be using your expertise to give back to the community.
But those impacts are low. No one is denied tenure or further promotion and pay raises because they didn't do any reviewing. The reviewing duties (or lack thereof) merely contribute to the overall impression of one's success (or lack thereof).
The benefits of reviewing are, therefore, intangible. But they are not insignificant. One of the best reasons for reviewing is you get to see the latest work before it even becomes the latest work. That helps you stay on top of your field in ways you may not appreciate immediately. You get to see players you haven't been aware of and directions your field might be going in that previously were unknown to you.
Very importantly, you learn more about how to--or not to--write. There is nothing like struggling with someone else's unclear explanations and weak arguments to help you avoid committing those errors yourself.
You become known. Sometimes editors invite you to review, not because they know you (I don't know most of the people I ask to review), but because your name popped up in a database or you were recommended. If you do a good job, the editors may remember you. Yes, the downside is they may ask you to review again, but the upside is they will now know who you are. You never know when or how that might pay off. Don't forget most editors are senior scientists.
Finally--and I know this is the weakest argument of all but important nevertheless--if everyone stopped reviewing, there would be no or little quality control on what gets published. No one has enough time. The faithful reviewers would gradually become so overloaded they would give up, and then editors would give up because trying to find reviewers would become more and more difficult. The entire system would collapse.
I'm increasingly being asked to review, and reading through these posts (which I first saw in the ESWN feed on FB) today. Thanks for writing and making all this content available.
ReplyDeleteDo you recommend listing the journals/organizations for which you review on your CV? If so, how or where? I've seen mixed opinions on this.
I do. There are a couple of uses for CVs. One is general use, by which I mean CVs sent out to hosts, granting agencies, or whatever, and the other is for tenure and promotion packets. I definitely include this information on the general use CV.
DeleteIncreasingly, departments and universities are prescribing exactly what kind of information should be included in tenure and promotion packets. If it is allowed, I would include this kind of information on your CV. Why? It shows the geological community (a) knows who you are and (b) values your input.