Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jan-Mar;18(1):1804.
doi: 10.18549/PharmPract.2020.1.1804. Epub 2020 Jan 14.

How many manuscripts should I peer review per year?

Collaborators, Affiliations

How many manuscripts should I peer review per year?

Fernando Fernandez-Llimos et al. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2020 Jan-Mar.

Abstract

Peer review provides the foundation for the scholarly publishing system. The conventional peer review system consists of using authors of articles as reviewers for other colleagues' manuscripts in a collaborative-basis system. However, authors complain about a theoretical overwhelming number of invitations to peer review. It seems that authors feel that they are invited to review many more manuscripts than they should when taking into account their participation in the scholarly publishing system. The high number of scientific journals and the existence of predatory journals were reported as potential causes of this excessive number of reviews required. In this editorial, we demonstrate that the number of reviewers required to publish a given number of articles depends exclusively on the journals' rejection rate and the number of reviewers intended per manuscript. Several initiatives to overcome the peer review crises are suggested.

Keywords: Open Access Publishing; Peer Review, Research; Periodicals as Topic.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Total number of reviewers required per article published as a function of a journal’s rejection rate
Colored lines represent the number of reviewers assigned per manuscript received

References

    1. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):MR000016. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. . Ann Intern Med. 1994;121(1):11–21. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pierie JP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJ. Readers’ evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet. 1996;348(9040):1480–1483. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)05016-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kovanis M, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Porcher R. Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication. Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):651–671. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2375-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. [Jan 05;2020 ];Fact-checking on Facebook: What publishers should know. Available at: https://en-gb.facebook.com/help/publisher/182222309230722 .

LinkOut - more resources