209
views
1
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution

      editorial

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          It is commonly reported by editors that it has become harder to recruit reviewers for peer review and that this is because individuals are being asked to review too often and are experiencing reviewer fatigue. However, evidence supporting these arguments is largely anecdotal.

          Main body

          We examine responses of individuals to review invitations for six journals in ecology and evolution. The proportion of invitations that lead to a submitted review has been decreasing steadily over 13 years (2003–2015) for four of the six journals examined, with a cumulative effect that has been quite substantial (average decline from 56% of review invitations generating a review in 2003 to just 37% in 2015). The likelihood that an invitee agrees to review declines significantly with the number of invitations they receive in a year. However, the average number of invitations being sent to prospective reviewers and the proportion of individuals being invited more than once per year has not changed much over these 13 years, despite substantial increases in the total number of review invitations being sent by these journals—the reviewer base has expanded concomitant with this growth in review requests.

          Conclusions

          The proportion of review invitations that lead to a review being submitted has been declining steadily for four of the six journals examined here, but reviewer fatigue is not likely the primary explanation for this decline.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars Decline to Review their Peers’ Work

            As new academic journals have emerged in political science and existing journals experience increasing submission rates, editors are concerned that scholars experience “reviewer fatigue.” Editors often assume that an overload of requests to review makes scholars less willing to perform the anonymous yet time-consuming tasks associated with reviewing manuscripts. To date, there has not been a systematic investigation of the reasons why scholars decline to review. We empirically investigated the rate at which scholars accept or decline to review, as well as the reasons they gave for declining. We found that reviewer fatigue is only one of several reasons why scholars decline to review. The evidence suggests that scholars are willing to review but that they also lead busy professional and personal lives.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              No crisis in supply of peer reviewers.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                cfox@uky.edu
                aykalbert@gmail.com
                tim@axiosreview.org
                Journal
                Res Integr Peer Rev
                Res Integr Peer Rev
                Research Integrity and Peer Review
                BioMed Central (London )
                2058-8615
                8 March 2017
                8 March 2017
                2017
                : 2
                : 3
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8438, GRID grid.266539.d, Department of Entomology, , University of Kentucky, ; Lexington, KY 40546-0091 USA
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9878 6515, GRID grid.413264.6, Women’s Health Research Institute, , BC Women’s Hospital and Health Centre, ; Vancouver, British Columbia V6H 3N1 Canada
                [3 ]Axios Review Editorial Office, 4521 John Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V5V 3X3 Canada
                Article
                27
                10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x
                5803623
                29451533
                09a367ae-56eb-4cbb-9dae-2b6a93a57335
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 9 December 2016
                : 4 February 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000409, British Ecological Society;
                Funded by: Society for the Study of Evolution
                Categories
                Commentary
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                peer review,reviewers,reviewer fatigue,scholarly journals

                Comments

                Comment on this article