• About
    • Peer Review
      • Peer Review, the basics
      • Types of Peer Review
      • How to be a good reviewer?
      • Peer Review and the Publishing Cycle
    • How it works
    • Company
    • Policies
    • Team
    • Ambassadors
    • News
  • FAQ
  • Contact Us
  • Reward Center
  • Login
  • Signup
ReviewerCredits
  • Login
  • For Reviewers
    • Why join
    • Claim a review
    • Claim a talk
    • Gain credits
    • Peer review course
    • Contacts
  • For Journals
    • Why join
    • Journal subscriptions and fees
    • Integrate with us
    • Publishers
    • Contacts
  • Search
    • Peer reviewers and speakers
    • Journals
    • Talks
    • Conferences
Select Page

The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review

Dec 3, 2017

The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise

Originally published PLoS ONE 11(11): e0166387.

Michail Kovanis, Raphaël Porcher, Philippe Ravaud, Ludovic Trinquart

The growth in scientific production may threaten the capacity for the scientific community to handle the ever-increasing demand for peer review of scientific publications. There is little evidence regarding the sustainability of the peer-review system and how the scientific community copes with the burden it poses. We used mathematical modeling to estimate the overall quantitative annual demand for peer review and the supply in biomedical research. The modeling was informed by empirical data from various sources in the biomedical domain, including all articles indexed at MEDLINE. We found that for 2015, across a range of scenarios, the supply exceeded by 15% to 249% the demand for reviewers and reviews. However, 20% of the researchers performed 69% to 94% of the reviews. Among researchers actually contributing to peer review, 70% dedicated 1% or less of their research work-time to peer review while 5% dedicated 13% or more of it. An estimated 63.4 million hours were devoted to peer review in 2015, among which 18.9 million hours were provided by the top 5% contributing reviewers. Our results support that the system is sustainable in terms of volume but emphasizes a considerable imbalance in the distribution of the peer-review effort across the scientific community. Finally, various individual interactions between authors, editors and reviewers may reduce to some extent the number of reviewers who are available to editors at any point.

Full paper available here: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166387

Copyright: © 2016 Kovanis et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

ReviewerCredits srl

Via Giosuè Carducci 8, 20123 Milano (MI), Italy
CF and VAT no. IT02675490185

Capitale sociale: 30.000 €
Reg. Imprese di MILANO MONZA BRIANZA LODI, REA: MI – 2549563

Copyright by ReviewerCredits S.R.L.
All Rights Reserved

Bicocca Universita Degli Studi di Milano Spinoff
Spin-off company endorsed by University of Milan-Bicocca

About

Conferences

Advertising and Sponsorship

Newsletter

Watch Video

Terms and conditions

Privacy Policy

Startup Innovativa

Contacts

Reviewers
[email protected]

Journals
[email protected]

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OkRead more