Editorial pubs.acs.org/ac
Too Busy to Review? Analytical Chemistry, I, the associate editors, and many practicing analytical chemists sincerely thank you.
O
ne of the more aggravating statements made to me by an esteemed colleague was that he was too busy to review papers. I initially assumed he meant he was too busy at the time, as I can certainly understand when schedules get so hectic that people have to turn down review requests. However, after further conversation, he explained that he did not review at all because he was always behind on research, teaching, writing, and life. I hope this does not also describe you! Finding reviewers for papers submitted to Analytical Chemistry can be the most time-consuming and frustrating part of our jobs as editors. And in case you are wondering, even though this individual stated he does not review, he continues to submit his papers to Analytical Chemistry, and of course, we continue to send them out for review. Luckily, this person’s attitude is the exception and not the rule. Let me add another comment about people who say they are too busy to review; there are a handful of amazing researchers who have large research groups, publish large numbers of excellent papers, and serve on countless committees, and yet these productive individuals rarely turn down a review request. When talking to one such “super” person, I was told he reviews more than 200 manuscripts per year! Others more tightly regulate their time but I hope most of us realize that the peer review system does not work unless all of us review our fair share. What is our share? I would suggest that each of us reviews at least as many manuscripts (if asked) as the number of reviewers required to assess the papers that we submit. As an example, if you submit 10 articles per year, and each requires 2 to 3 reviewers for the evaluation process, then just to “break even” you should review close to 30 manuscripts per year. It could be more. For example, Analytical Chemistry receives manuscripts from scientists outside of the mainstream analytical fields, and we still need to have them reviewed by practicing analytical chemists. Therefore, I think a good rule of thumb is that you should not start turning down review requests until you have reviewed four manuscripts for every one you have submitted. Of course, speaking on behalf of all journal editors, even more would be appreciated! Getting back to someone being too busy to review, let me touch upon a related topic, reviewing grant proposals. I am often told about how difficult it is to get outstanding scientists to serve on agency study sections for reviewing grant applications. If those at the top of their career are not willing to this, their field will ultimately suffer. For younger scientists, there is no better way to learn about writing a successful grant proposal than by reading a number of good and bad applications and having experienced, practicing scientists critique them in front of you. For senior scientists, this is your opportunity to help define the future of your field. Yes, this is time-consuming but it is critical and part of our jobs. Thus, the next time you are invited to review a grant proposal or manuscript and you think you are too busy to accept, carefully consider if you can make the time before saying no. And for the many of you who regularly review for © XXXX American Chemical Society
■
Jonathan V. Sweedler AUTHOR INFORMATION
Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
A
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac5017826 | Anal. Chem. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
