Reviewer Requests—When To Click “I agree” and When To Say No

Editorial pubs.acs.org/cm

Reviewer RequestsWhen To Click “I agree” and When To Say No Managing Reviewer Obligations

P

will be able to complete the review. Sometimes the editor does not want to wait, but most of the time they are willing to do so because they know that the review, when received, will be of the highest quality. 52 papers sounds like a lot... but one paper a week does not sound so bad. This is one way (of many) to manage reviewing time.

eer-review is a critically important step in making sure that the published scientific record is accurate. It also provides a valuable service to the authors, as published papers are improved and refined in response to specific comments, questions, and sober second thought. One compelling motivation to review a paper is to satisfy our innate curiosity to read itreading work “fresh out of the lab” is exciting and enjoyable. That said, reviewing a paper properly takes time and is yet one more thing on your to-do list or in your inbox, neither of which ever seems to be empty. Below are some thoughts on how to manage your time and make both your life, and that of the journal editor, happier. 1. Do not say “yes” unless you mean it. A colleague and friend recently surprised me when, during her lamentation about being behind on many reviews, it became apparent that she accepts all requests to review papers. What did not surprise me was her confession that some of these reviews never get completed. We have all experienced the paper that is out for review and takes forever to come back... often because wellmeaning would-be reviewers said “yes” and bit off more than they could chew. When you receive a request to review a paper, take a minute to think about your other obligations and whether this review can reasonably be accommodated in the expected time frame. If the answer is “no”, the editor will thank you for informing them promptly, especially if you can recommend a suitable reviewer. I will often recommend new faculty in their first few years as they are as-yet unknown to editors and it helps them to build relationships. Likewise, international postdocs who are seeking permanent residency in the U.S. often want to review papers, as that strengthens their case. 2. Know when to say “no”. Reviewing papers is a key responsibility of members of the scientific community, but it is one of many. There are many circumstances when the right answer is “no”. If you get a request from a journal in which you have no intention of ever publishing and do not read, just say “no”. Likewise, if you just reviewed three papers in one week from one journal, by all means say “no” to the next request. If you do not think you have the knowledge base or time to provide a substantive review, “no” is the way to go. Finally, if you have a conflict of interest and/or do not think you can be impartial, “no” is, again, the only right answer. 3. How many papers should you be reviewing? As a rule of thumb, if you expect to get three substantive reviews on the papers you submit, you should be providing at least three times as many reviews per year as published papers. Many of us do considerably more, because we are passionate about the service, want to support other authors, or want to make sure only the best quality work is published. This is laudable, but the time management problem comes in to play once more. I have another colleague and friend who reviews 52 papers per year on a one-paper-per-week schedule. When she gets a request to review, she looks at her calendar and tells the editor when she © 2015 American Chemical Society

As a rule of thumb, if you expect to get three substantive reviews on the papers you submit, you should be providing at least three times as many reviews per year as published papers.

4. Let the editor know if you need more time or if you are unavailable. Things do come up. If you need more time, just ask. It is far better to wait for a thoughtful review than settle for a superficial one. If the editor has enough reviews to make a decision you might even get off scot-free! Likewise, if you are unplugging for 3 weeks to get married on an exotic island with no wireless Internet, feel free to tell journal editors you are not available for that time period... that way you will not come back to a bunch of urgent requests. Your editor will thank you for keeping them in the loop! It is sincerely hoped that this advice will help to maintain balance in your professional life so that you can continue to carry out thoughtful and constructive reviews, from which the scientific community greatly benefits.

Stephanie L. Brock, Editorial Advisory Board Member, Chemistry of Materials, and Chair, ACS Joint BoardCouncil Committee on Publications Published: May 26, 2015 3547

DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.5b01672 Chem. Mater. 2015, 27, 3547−3548

Chemistry of Materials

■

Editorial

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Notes

Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS.

3548

DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.5b01672 Chem. Mater. 2015, 27, 3547−3548