Reviewing #4--How to, and not to, turn down a review request


Editors understand that review requests often arrive on reviewers' desks at bad times and that reviewers cannot always be responsive.  So we expect reviewers to turn us down.  But if you cannot respond positively to a request, there are ways to turn it down that are very helpful to the editors (and the entire review process), and there are ways that drive editors batty.  A little consideration goes a long, long way.

Do
  • Respond as soon as you get the request.
  • Use the link provided, if there is one, to turn down the request.
  • Suggest alternate reviewers, if asked, as many as possible, and particularly if they are relatively new to the profession, such as assistant professors or postdocs.  The more people in the reviewing pool, the easier it is on everyone.
  • Provide email addresses and/or institutional affiliations of those alternate reviewers.

Do not
  • Let the request expire without responding.  The journal I edit for will let requests hang out there for a week before sending a "your services are no longer needed" email.  Obviously, if you do not see the request because you are away, that's reasonable, but a lot of people just ignore the request.  That draws out the review process by a week just waiting for your response.  
  • Send an email declining the request if the journal has provided a link.  Use the link.  It seems impersonal to some people, but the editors won't feel that way--trust me.
  • Fail to suggest alternate reviewers if asked.  You would be amazed how difficult it can be to find reviewers for some papers.
  • Suggest just names, with no email addresses or institutional affiliations.
  • Suggest well-known scientists in the field.  I can guarantee that they've already been suggested and either are already doing other reviews (editors try really hard not to pile on) or have already turned down a request to review that manuscript.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reviewing #7--To sign or not to sign?

Whether you sign your reviews is a personal decision, and I would never question someone who decides on anonymity.  But, here's my take on it.  I decided from my first review request, which must have been some time in the early or mid-1980s, to sign all my reviews.  I did this despite the fact that most people opted for anonymity and many women often concealed their sex by using only initials (I also decided to publish using my full name). I made this decision for one reason.  I felt (and still feel) that if I were critical of someone's work, I should have the courage of my convictions.  Science is supposed to be a free exchange of ideas, and hiding behind anonymity in reviews is not, in my mind, conducive to that kind of transparency.  I would sign my reviews of NSF proposals, if NSF would let me (they will not allow you to sign, and will strip out any attempt to do so). I cannot know what I don't know, so I have no idea if this decision has ha...
Read more

Reviewing #2--What makes a good review?

The most important task for a reviewer is to do a good review.  By "good", I mean constructive and as comprehensive as you have time for but comprehensive enough (see "constructive"). Don't pull your punches, but don't be sarcastic or dismissive, either.  One would think this would go without saying, but it's not.  So what do I mean when I say "don't pull your punches"? Human nature is such that we read the good and ignore the bad.  If you wrap all the negative comments in cotton, the author(s) will misread them or won't take them seriously.  So it's best to just be straightforward and candid.  Explain what the problem is and why it's a problem (and there may be multiple problems).  And, if you are so inclined, suggest a solution.  If you cite references, be sure to provide them. Basically, follow the Golden Rule.  Ask yourself if your review will either help the author(s) improve the manuscript, or if the manuscript cann...
Read more

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 ...
Read more