How Long Does It Take to Review a Paper Application
As junior scientists develop their expertise and make names for themselves, they are increasingly likely to receive invitations to review inquiry manuscripts. Information technology'due south an important skill and service to the scientific customs, but the learning curve tin be particularly steep. Writing a expert review requires expertise in the field, an intimate knowledge of research methods, a disquisitional listen, the ability to give fair and constructive feedback, and sensitivity to the feelings of authors on the receiving end. Equally a range of institutions and organizations around the world celebrate the essential function of peer review in upholding the quality of published research this week, Scientific discipline Careers shares collected insights and communication nigh how to review papers from researchers across the spectrum. The responses have been edited for clarity and brevity.
What practise yous consider when deciding whether to accept an invitation to review a paper?
I consider four factors: whether I'k sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic to offer an intelligent assessment, how interesting I find the enquiry topic, whether I'chiliad gratis of whatever conflict of interest, and whether I accept the time. If the respond to all 4 questions is yep, then I'll usually agree to review.
- Chris Chambers , professor of cognitive neuroscience at Cardiff Academy in the United Kingdom
I am very open-minded when it comes to accepting invitations to review. I see information technology as a tit-for-tat duty: Since I am an active researcher and I submit papers, hoping for really helpful, effective comments, information technology just makes sense that I practice the same for others. So accepting an invitation for me is the default, unless a paper is really far from my expertise or my workload doesn't permit it. The only other factor I pay attending to is the scientific integrity of the journal. I would non want to review for a periodical that does not offering an unbiased review process.
- Eva Selenko , senior lecturer in piece of work psychology at Loughborough University in the United Kingdom
I'm more prone to agree to do a review if information technology involves a system or method in which I accept a particular expertise. And I'm non going to take on a paper to review unless I have the time. For every manuscript of my own that I submit to a journal, I review at least a few papers, then I give dorsum to the system plenty. I've heard from some reviewers that they're more likely to accept an invitation to review from a more prestigious journal and don't feel as bad nigh rejecting invitations from more than specialized journals. That makes things a lot harder for editors of the less prestigious journals, and that'southward why I am more inclined to take on reviews from them. If I've never heard of the authors, and especially if they're from a less developed nation, then I'k besides more than likely to accept the invitation. I do this because editors might have a harder time landing reviewers for these papers also, and because people who aren't deeply connected into our research community besides deserve quality feedback. Finally, I am more inclined to review for journals with double-blind reviewing practices and journals that are run by academic societies, because those are both things that I desire to support and encourage.
- Terry McGlynn , professor of biology at California State University, Dominguez Hills
I usually consider commencement the relevance to my ain expertise. I will plough downward requests if the paper is also far removed from my own enquiry areas, since I may not be able to provide an informed review. Having said that, I tend to define my expertise adequately broadly for reviewing purposes. I also consider the journal. I am more willing to review for journals that I read or publish in. Before I became an editor, I used to exist fairly eclectic in the journals I reviewed for, but now I tend to be more discerning, since my editing duties take upward much of my reviewing time.
- John P. Walsh , professor of public policy at the Georgia Constitute of Technology in Atlanta
Once you've agreed to complete a review, how do y'all approach the paper?
Unless information technology's for a journal I know well, the commencement thing I exercise is check what format the periodical prefers the review to be in. Some journals have structured review criteria; others just ask for general and specific comments. Knowing this in advance helps relieve fourth dimension later.
I almost never print out papers for review; I adopt to work with the electronic version. I always read the paper sequentially, from start to terminate, making comments on the PDF as I go along. I wait for specific indicators of research quality, asking myself questions such as: Are the background literature and study rationale clearly articulated? Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous work? Are the methods robust and well controlled? Are the reported analyses advisable? (I unremarkably pay close attention to the use—and misuse—of frequentist statistics.) Is the presentation of results clear and attainable? To what extent does the Discussion place the findings in a wider context and attain a residual between interpretation and useful speculation versus tedious waffling?
- Chambers
I subconsciously follow a checklist. Kickoff, is information technology well written? That usually becomes apparent by the Methods section. (So, throughout, if what I am reading is but partly comprehensible, I practise non spend a lot of energy trying to make sense of it, simply in my review I will relay the ambiguities to the author.) I should also accept a good idea of the hypothesis and context within the first few pages, and information technology matters whether the hypothesis makes sense or is interesting. Then I read the Methods section very carefully. I exercise not focus so much on the statistics—a quality journal should have professional statistics review for any accustomed manuscript—merely I consider all the other logistics of written report design where it's easy to hide a fatal flaw. Mostly I am concerned with credibility: Could this methodology take answered their question? And then I look at how disarming the results are and how conscientious the description is. Sloppiness anywhere makes me worry. The parts of the Discussion I focus on most are context and whether the authors make claims that overreach the data. This is done all the fourth dimension, to varying degrees. I desire statements of fact, not opinion or speculation, backed up by data.
- Michael Callaham , emergency care doctor and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco
About journals don't have special instructions, so I just read the paper, usually starting with the Abstract, looking at the figures, and then reading the paper in a linear fashion. I read the digital version with an open word processing file, keeping a list of "major items" and "modest items" and making notes as I go. There are a few aspects that I make sure to address, though I cover a lot more than footing as well. First, I consider how the question being addressed fits into the current condition of our knowledge. 2d, I ponder how well the work that was conducted actually addresses the central question posed in the paper. (In my field, authors are under pressure to broadly sell their work, and it'due south my job as a reviewer to accost the validity of such claims.) Third, I make certain that the design of the methods and analyses are appropriate.
- McGlynn
Outset, I read a printed version to get an overall impression. What is the newspaper about? How is information technology structured? I also pay attention to the schemes and figures; if they are well designed and organized, then in most cases the entire newspaper has besides been advisedly thought out.
When diving in deeper, offset I effort to appraise whether all the important papers are cited in the references, as that also often correlates with the quality of the manuscript itself. Then, right in the Introduction, y'all can oft recognize whether the authors considered the full context of their topic. Later that, I check whether all the experiments and data make sense, paying particular attention to whether the authors carefully designed and performed the experiments and whether they analyzed and interpreted the results in a comprehensible way. It is also very important that the authors guide you lot through the whole article and explain every table, every figure, and every scheme.
Equally I go forth, I use a highlighter and other pens, so the manuscript is unremarkably colorful after I read it. Too that, I make notes on an actress sheet.
- Melanie Kim Müller , doctoral candidate in organic chemical science at the Technical Academy of Kaiserslautern in Germany
I first familiarize myself with the manuscript and read relevant snippets of the literature to make sure that the manuscript is coherent with the larger scientific domain. Then I scrutinize it section by department, noting if there are any missing links in the story and if certain points are under- or overrepresented. I also scout for inconsistencies in the portrayal of facts and observations, appraise whether the exact technical specifications of the study materials and equipment are described, consider the adequacy of the sample size and the quality of the figures, and assess whether the findings in the chief manuscript are aptly supplemented by the supplementary section and whether the authors have followed the journal's submission guidelines.
- Chaitanya Giri , postdoctoral inquiry fellow at the Earth-Life Science Institute in Tokyo
I print out the newspaper, as I observe it easier to make comments on the printed pages than on an electronic reader. I read the manuscript very advisedly the first time, trying to follow the authors' argument and predict what the next step could exist. At this start phase, I try to be every bit open-minded as I can. I don't have a formalized checklist, but there are a number of questions that I generally utilise. Does the theoretical argument make sense? Does information technology contribute to our knowledge, or is information technology old wine in new bottles? Is there an angle the authors accept disregarded? This often requires doing some groundwork reading, sometimes including some of the cited literature, about the theory presented in the manuscript.
I so delve into the Methods and Results sections. Are the methods suitable to investigate the research question and test the hypotheses? Would there have been a better way to test these hypotheses or to analyze these results? Is the statistical analysis audio and justified? Could I replicate the results using the information in the Methods and the clarification of the analysis? I fifty-fifty selectively check individual numbers to see whether they are statistically plausible. I as well carefully expect at the caption of the results and whether the conclusions the authors draw are justified and continued with the broader statement made in the paper. If there are any aspects of the manuscript that I am not familiar with, I endeavor to read upward on those topics or consult other colleagues.
- Selenko
I spend a fair amount of time looking at the figures. In addition to considering their overall quality, sometimes figures enhance questions almost the methods used to collect or analyze the data, or they fail to back up a finding reported in the paper and warrant farther clarification. I also want to know whether the authors' conclusions are adequately supported by the results. Conclusions that are overstated or out of sync with the findings volition adversely impact my review and recommendations.
- Dana Boatman-Reich , professor of neurology and otolaryngology at Johns Hopkins Academy School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland
I generally read on the calculator and start with the Abstract to get an initial impression. Then I read the paper equally a whole, thoroughly and from first to stop, taking notes as I read. For me, the first question is this: Is the research sound? And secondly, how tin it exist improved? Basically, I am looking to see if the research question is well motivated; if the information are audio; if the analyses are technically right; and, most chiefly, if the findings support the claims fabricated in the paper.
- Walsh
The main aspects I consider are the novelty of the article and its impact on the field. I e'er inquire myself what makes this newspaper relevant and what new advance or contribution the paper represents. Then I follow a routine that will help me evaluate this. First, I cheque the authors' publication records in PubMed to get a feel for their expertise in the field. I also consider whether the article contains a good Introduction and clarification of the state of the art, as that indirectly shows whether the authors accept a adept noesis of the field. Second, I pay attending to the results and whether they have been compared with other similar published studies. 3rd, I consider whether the results or the proposed methodology take some potential broader applicability or relevance, because in my opinion this is important. Finally, I evaluate whether the methodology used is appropriate. If the authors have presented a new tool or software, I volition test it in detail.
- Fátima Al-Shahrour , caput of the Translational Bioinformatics Unit in the clinical enquiry program at the Spanish National Cancer Research Heart in Madrid
How exercise you go about drafting the review? Do you sign information technology?
Using a copy of the manuscript that I first marked up with any questions that I had, I write a brief summary of what the paper is about and what I feel about its solidity. Then I run through the specific points I raised in my summary in more detail, in the order they appeared in the paper, providing page and paragraph numbers for near. Finally comes a list of actually minor stuff, which I try to keep to a minimum. I then typically go through my first draft looking at the marked-upwardly manuscript again to make certain I didn't leave out annihilation important. If I feel at that place is some good material in the newspaper but it needs a lot of work, I volition write a pretty long and specific review pointing out what the authors demand to do. If the paper has horrendous difficulties or a dislocated concept, I will specify that but volition not do a lot of work to try to suggest fixes for every flaw.
I never apply value judgments or value-laden adjectives. Nothing is "lousy" or "stupid," and nobody is "incompetent." Withal, equally an author your information might be incomplete, or you may have overlooked a huge contradiction in your results, or you may have made major errors in the study pattern. That's what I communicate, with a way to fix information technology if a feasible one comes to mind. Hopefully, this volition be used to make the manuscript better rather than to shame anyone. Overall, I want to accomplish an evaluation of the report that is off-white, objective, and complete enough to convince both the editor and the authors that I know something nearly what I'grand talking about. I too attempt to cite a specific factual reason or some testify for any major criticisms or suggestions that I make. After all, even though you were selected as an expert, for each review the editor has to make up one's mind how much they believe in your cess.
- Callaham
I utilise annotations that I fabricated in the PDF to start writing my review; that style I never forget to mention something that occurred to me while reading the paper. Unless the journal uses a structured review format, I usually begin my review with a general statement of my understanding of the newspaper and what it claims, followed by a paragraph offering an overall assessment. And then I brand specific comments on each department, listing the major questions or concerns. Depending on how much time I have, I sometimes besides end with a department of pocket-sized comments. I may, for instance, highlight an obvious typo or grammatical error, though I don't pay a lot of attention to these, every bit it is the authors' and copyeditors' responsibility to ensure clear writing.
I try to be equally constructive as possible. A review is primarily for the benefit of the editor, to assist them attain a decision almost whether to publish or not, simply I try to brand my reviews useful for the authors equally well. I e'er write my reviews as though I am talking to the scientists in person. I attempt hard to avoid rude or disparaging remarks. The review process is brutal enough scientifically without reviewers making it worse.
Since obtaining tenure, I always sign my reviews. I believe it improves the transparency of the review procedure, and it also helps me constabulary the quality of my ain assessments past making me personally answerable.
- Chambers
I want to help the authors ameliorate their manuscript and to aid the editor in the decision process by providing a neutral and balanced review of the manuscript'south strengths and weaknesses and how to potentially improve it. After I have finished reading the manuscript, I allow it sink in for a mean solar day or and so and then I endeavour to determine which aspects really matter. This helps me to distinguish between major and minor problems and also to group them thematically every bit I draft my review. My reviews unremarkably starting time out with a curt summary and a highlight of the strengths of the manuscript before briefly listing the weaknesses that I believe should be addressed. I endeavour to link any criticism I accept either to a page number or a quotation from the manuscript to ensure that my statement is understood. I also selectively refer to others' work or statistical tests to substantiate why I recollect something should be done differently.
I effort to be constructive by suggesting ways to meliorate the problematic aspects, if that is possible, and also try to striking a calm and friendly simply likewise neutral and objective tone. This is not e'er easy, especially if I discover what I retrieve is a serious flaw in the manuscript. Even so, I know that beingness on the receiving cease of a review is quite stressful, and a critique of something that is close to 1's center tin can easily be perceived every bit unjust. I try to write my reviews in a tone and form that I could put my name to, even though reviews in my field are normally double-blind and not signed.
- Selenko
I'yard aiming to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the quality of the paper that will exist of apply to both the editor and the authors. I remember a lot of reviewers approach a paper with the philosophy that they are at that place to identify flaws. Just I only mention flaws if they matter, and I will brand certain the review is constructive. If I'grand pointing out a problem or concern, I substantiate it enough so that the authors tin can't say, "Well, that's not correct" or "That'due south not off-white." I work to be conversational and factual, and I clearly distinguish statements of fact from my own opinions.
I used to sign near of my reviews, but I don't practise that anymore. If you make a practice of signing reviews, then over the years, many of your colleagues will accept received reviews with your name on them. Even if yous are focused on writing quality reviews and being fair and collegial, it's inevitable that some colleagues will be less than beholden about the content of the reviews. And if you place a paper that you call back has a substantial error that is not hands fixed, then the authors of this newspaper volition detect it hard to not concur a grudge. I've known too many junior scientists who have been burned from signing their reviews early on in their careers. So now, I only sign my reviews then as to be fully transparent on the rare occasions when I suggest that the authors cite papers of mine, which I only do when my piece of work will remedy factual errors or right the claim that something has never been addressed before.
- McGlynn
My review begins with a paragraph summarizing the paper. Then I have bullet points for major comments and for minor comments. Major comments may include suggesting a missing control that could make or break the authors' conclusions or an of import experiment that would assist the story, though I endeavor non to recommend extremely difficult experiments that would be beyond the telescopic of the paper or take forever. Minor comments may include flagging the mislabeling of a figure in the text or a misspelling that changes the pregnant of a mutual term. Overall, I try to brand comments that would make the paper stronger. My tone is very formal, scientific, and in third person. I'm critiquing the work, not the authors. If there is a major flaw or concern, I attempt to be honest and back information technology up with evidence.
- Sara Wong , doctoral candidate in cellular and molecular biology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
I start by making a bullet bespeak listing of the principal strengths and weaknesses of the paper and then mankind out the review with details. I oftentimes refer back to my annotated version of the online paper. I commonly differentiate between major and minor criticisms and word them as directly and concisely equally possible. When I recommend revisions, I try to give clear, detailed feedback to guide the authors. Fifty-fifty if a manuscript is rejected for publication, most authors tin do good from suggestions. I endeavor to stick to the facts, so my writing tone tends toward neutral. Before submitting a review, I ask myself whether I would be comfortable if my identity every bit a reviewer was known to the authors. Passing this "identity test" helps ensure that my review is sufficiently balanced and off-white.
- Boatman-Reich
My reviews tend to accept the course of a summary of the arguments in the paper, followed by a summary of my reactions and then a series of the specific points that I wanted to raise. Mostly, I am trying to identify the authors' claims in the paper that I did not find disarming and guide them to means that these points tin be strengthened (or, perhaps, dropped as beyond the scope of what this study can support). If I find the paper especially interesting (and even if I am going to recommend rejection), I tend to give a more detailed review considering I want to encourage the authors to develop the paper (or, maybe, to practice a new paper along the lines suggested in the review). My tone is one of trying to be effective and helpful fifty-fifty though, of course, the authors might not agree with that characterization.
- Walsh
I try to deed as a neutral, curious reader who wants to understand every detail. If in that location are things I struggle with, I will propose that the authors revise parts of their paper to make it more solid or broadly attainable. I want to give them honest feedback of the same type that I hope to receive when I submit a paper.
- Müller
I first with a cursory summary of the results and conclusions every bit a way to evidence that I have understood the newspaper and have a full general stance. I always comment on the form of the paper, highlighting whether it is well written, has correct grammer, and follows a correct structure. Then, I dissever the review in two sections with bullet points, first listing the most disquisitional aspects that the authors must accost to improve demonstrate the quality and novelty of the paper and then more than minor points such as misspelling and figure format. When you deliver criticism, your comments should be honest just always respectful and accompanied with suggestions to improve the manuscript.
- Al-Shahrour
When, and how, practise yous determine on your recommendation?
I make a decision afterward drafting my review. I ordinarily sit on the review for a day and so reread information technology to be certain it is counterbalanced and off-white earlier deciding anything.
- Boatman-Reich
I usually don't decide on a recommendation until I've read the entire newspaper, although for poor quality papers, it isn't always necessary to read everything.
- Chambers
I only make a recommendation to accept, revise, or decline if the periodical specifically requests one. The conclusion is made past the editor, and my job equally a reviewer is to provide a nuanced and detailed study on the paper to support the editor.
- McGlynn
The decision comes forth during reading and making notes. If there are serious mistakes or missing parts, then I practice not recommend publication. I ordinarily write down all the things that I noticed, skillful and bad, and then my decision does not influence the content and length of my review.
- Müller
In my experience, well-nigh papers become through several rounds of revisions before I would recommend them for publication. Mostly, if I tin can meet originality and novelty in a manuscript and the study was carried out in a solid manner, then I give a recommendation for "revise and resubmit," highlighting the need for the analysis strategy, for example, to be farther developed. However, if the mechanism existence tested does not actually provide new knowledge, or if the method and report design are of insufficient quality, then my hopes for a manuscript are rather low. The length and content of my reviews mostly do not relate to the outcome of my decisions. I usually write rather lengthy reviews at the showtime round of the revision process, and these tend to become shorter as the manuscript so improves in quality.
- Selenko
Publication is not a binary recommendation. The fact that only five% of a journal's readers might ever look at a paper, for instance, tin't exist used as criteria for rejection, if in fact information technology is a seminal newspaper that volition impact that field. And nosotros never know what findings will amount to in a few years; many breakthrough studies were non recognized equally such for many years. So I can only rate what priority I believe the paper should receive for publication today.
- Callaham
If the enquiry presented in the paper has serious flaws, I am inclined to recommend rejection, unless the shortcoming can be remedied with a reasonable amount of revising. Also, I have the point of view that if the author cannot convincingly explain her study and findings to an informed reader, then the newspaper has not met the burden for acceptance in the journal.
- Walsh
My recommendations are inversely proportional to the length of my reviews. Short reviews translate into strong recommendations and vice versa.
- Giri
How long does it take you to review a paper?
This varies widely, from a few minutes if there is conspicuously a major problem with the paper to half a 24-hour interval if the newspaper is actually interesting but there are aspects that I don't sympathise. Occasionally, there are difficulties with a potentially publishable article that I think I can't properly assess in half a day, in which instance I will return the paper to the journal with an explanation and a suggestion for an expert who might exist closer to that attribute of the enquiry.
- Nicola Spaldin , professor of materials theory at the Swiss Federal Establish of Technology in Zurich
It commonly takes me a few hours. Most of the fourth dimension is spent closely reading the paper and taking notes. Once I accept the notes, writing the review itself by and large takes less than an hour.
- Walsh
It can accept me quite a long fourth dimension to write a skilful review, sometimes a full day of work and sometimes even longer. The detailed reading and the sense-making process, in particular, takes a long fourth dimension. Too, sometimes I discover that something is not quite correct but can't quite put my finger on information technology until I accept properly digested the manuscript.
- Selenko
A few hours. I like to utilize two sittings, fifty-fifty when I am pretty sure of my conclusions. Waiting some other day always seems to improve the review.
- Callaham
Ordinarily, a peer review takes me one or 2 days, including reading the supporting data.
- Müller
I almost ever exercise it in one sitting, anything from one to five hours depending on the length of the paper.
- Chambers
In my experience, the submission deadline for reviews usually ranges between 3 working days to upward to 3 weeks. As a rule of thumb, I roughly devote 20% of my reviewing time to a first, overall-impression browsing of the paper; twoscore% to a second reading that includes writing up suggestions and comments; 30% to a third reading that includes checking the compliance of the authors to the journal guidelines and the proper use of subject-typical jargon; and 10% to the concluding goof-proof browsing of my review. Altogether, information technology usually takes me more than than a day.
- Giri
What further advice do you have for researchers who are new to the peer-review process?
Many reviewers are not polite enough. Information technology'south OK for a newspaper to say something that y'all don't agree with. Sometimes I will say in a review something like, "I disagree with the authors nigh this interpretation, but it is scientifically valid and an advisable use of journal space for them to brand this argument." If you have whatever questions during the review process, don't hesitate to contact the editor who asked y'all to review the paper. Also, if you don't accept a review invitation, give her a few names for suggested reviewers, specially senior Ph.D. students and postdocs. In my experience, they are unlikely to write a poor quality review; they might exist more than likely to accept the invitation, every bit senior scientists are typically overwhelmed with review requests; and the opportunity to review a manuscript can assistance back up their professional evolution.
- McGlynn
The newspaper reviewing procedure can assistance you form your own scientific stance and develop critical thinking skills. It volition also provide you with an overview of the new advances in the field and assist yous when writing and submitting your own articles. So although peer reviewing definitely takes some endeavour, in the terminate information technology will be worth information technology. Likewise, the journal has invited y'all to review an commodity based on your expertise, but there will be many things you don't know. So if you accept not fully understood something in the newspaper, do not hesitate to ask for clarification. It will help you brand the right decision.
- Al-Shahrour
Remember that a review is non about whether one likes a certain slice of work, but whether the research is valid and tells us something new. Another common mistake is writing an unfocused review that is lost in the details. You can improve highlight the major problems that need to be dealt with past restructuring the review, summarizing the important problems upfront, or adding asterisks. I would actually encourage other scientists to take up peer-review opportunities whenever possible. Reviewing is a great learning experience and an heady thing to practise. I gets to know super fresh research immediate and gain insight into other authors' statement structure. I also think it is our duty as researchers to write proficient reviews. After all, nosotros are all in it together. The soundness of the entire peer-review process depends on the quality of the reviews that we write.
- Selenko
As a junior researcher, it may feel a footling weird or daunting to critique someone'due south completed work. Just pretend that information technology's your ain research and figure out what experiments you would do and how yous would interpret the data.
- Wong
Carry in heed that 1 of the most dangerous traps a reviewer can fall into is failing to recognize and acknowledge their own bias. To me, it is biased to reach a verdict on a paper based on how groundbreaking or novel the results are, for example. Such judgments take no place in the assessment of scientific quality, and they encourage publication bias from journals too as bad practices from authors to produce attractive results by cherry picking. Also, I wouldn't propose early-career researchers to sign their reviews, at least non until they either have a permanent position or otherwise feel stable in their careers. Although I believe that all established professors should be required to sign, the fact is that some authors can hold grudges confronting reviewers. We similar to think of scientists every bit objective truth-seekers, but nosotros are all too human and academia is intensely political, and a powerful writer who receives a critical review from a more junior scientist could be in a position to do swell harm to the reviewer'southward career prospects.
- Chambers
It is necessary to maintain decorum: One should review the paper justly and entirely on its merit, even if information technology comes from a competing inquiry group. Finally, there are occasions where you get extremely exciting papers that you might be tempted to share with your colleagues, simply you have to resist the urge and maintain strict confidentiality.
- Giri
At least early on, it is a expert thought to be open to review invitations so that y'all can see what unfinished papers look like and get familiar with the review process. Many journals ship the decision letters to the reviewers. Reading these tin can give yous insights into how the other reviewers viewed the paper, and into how editors evaluate reviews and make decisions about rejection versus acceptance or revise and resubmit.
- Walsh
At the offset of my career, I wasted quite a lot of free energy feeling guilty about beingness behind in my reviewing. New requests and reminders from editors kept piling up at a faster rate than I could complete the reviews and the trouble seemed intractable. I solved it by making the decision to review i journal article per week, putting a slot in my agenda for it, and promptly declining subsequent requests subsequently the weekly slot is filled—or offering the next available opening to the editor. And now I am in the happy situation of only experiencing late-review guilt on Friday afternoons, when I still have some time ahead of me to complete the week'south review.
- Spaldin
Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/how-review-paper#:~:text=Normally%2C%20a%20peer%20review%20takes,including%20reading%20the%20supporting%20information.&text=I%20almost%20always%20do%20it,the%20length%20of%20the%20paper.&text=In%20my%20experience%2C%20the%20submission,to%20up%20to%203%20weeks.
0 Response to "How Long Does It Take to Review a Paper Application"
Post a Comment